Development and clinical feasibility testing of the Pain Treatment Planning Questionnaire

Susan M. Tupper, J. Nilson, Jennifer King, P. Downe, N. Hodgson, T. Schlosser, K. Brose
{"title":"Development and clinical feasibility testing of the Pain Treatment Planning Questionnaire","authors":"Susan M. Tupper, J. Nilson, Jennifer King, P. Downe, N. Hodgson, T. Schlosser, K. Brose","doi":"10.17225/jhp00155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Chronic pain is common in people with bleeding disorders and can complicate clinical management, impair quality of life, and contribute to disability. People living with bleeding disorders often seek advice on pain management from the bleeding disorder treatment team; however, lack of condition-specific assessment tools to guide clinical communication about pain are a barrier to care. Aims To develop and examine the clinical feasibility of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) tool designed to facilitate pain assessment and support clinical communication about pain for adults attending outpatient bleeding disorder clinics. Methods Tool development involved patient cognitive interviews and item refinement by a multidisciplinary clinician and patient working group. Clinical feasibility of the tool was evaluated with a survey of a small clinical sample in an outpatient bleeding disorder clinic. The Pain Treatment Planning Questionnaire (PTPQ) contains 28 items on the pain experience and treatments used to manage or prevent pain. Results Participants completing the feasibility testing (n=42, 62% male) reported mild mean pain scores (usual pain μ=2.4, SD=2.0) with the majority (57.1%) reporting persistent pain in the past 30 days. Median PTPQ completion time was five to seven minutes and mean item response rate was 95.2%. The majority (95.2%) of participants found the questionnaire easy to understand, reported no difficulty understanding items, and recommended no changes to the questionnaire. Conclusions Preliminary testing among a small sample in a clinical setting suggests that the PTPQ is a clinically feasible, acceptable, condition-specific PRO pain assessment tool for adult patients with bleeding disorders. Further testing is required to determine if the PTPQ affects treatment decision-making and patient outcomes.","PeriodicalId":372940,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Haemophilia Practice","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Haemophilia Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17225/jhp00155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Background Chronic pain is common in people with bleeding disorders and can complicate clinical management, impair quality of life, and contribute to disability. People living with bleeding disorders often seek advice on pain management from the bleeding disorder treatment team; however, lack of condition-specific assessment tools to guide clinical communication about pain are a barrier to care. Aims To develop and examine the clinical feasibility of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) tool designed to facilitate pain assessment and support clinical communication about pain for adults attending outpatient bleeding disorder clinics. Methods Tool development involved patient cognitive interviews and item refinement by a multidisciplinary clinician and patient working group. Clinical feasibility of the tool was evaluated with a survey of a small clinical sample in an outpatient bleeding disorder clinic. The Pain Treatment Planning Questionnaire (PTPQ) contains 28 items on the pain experience and treatments used to manage or prevent pain. Results Participants completing the feasibility testing (n=42, 62% male) reported mild mean pain scores (usual pain μ=2.4, SD=2.0) with the majority (57.1%) reporting persistent pain in the past 30 days. Median PTPQ completion time was five to seven minutes and mean item response rate was 95.2%. The majority (95.2%) of participants found the questionnaire easy to understand, reported no difficulty understanding items, and recommended no changes to the questionnaire. Conclusions Preliminary testing among a small sample in a clinical setting suggests that the PTPQ is a clinically feasible, acceptable, condition-specific PRO pain assessment tool for adult patients with bleeding disorders. Further testing is required to determine if the PTPQ affects treatment decision-making and patient outcomes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
疼痛治疗计划问卷的编制及临床可行性检验
慢性疼痛在出血性疾病患者中很常见,可使临床管理复杂化,影响生活质量,并导致残疾。出血性疾病患者经常向出血性疾病治疗团队寻求疼痛管理方面的建议;然而,缺乏针对具体情况的评估工具来指导关于疼痛的临床交流是护理的障碍。目的开发并研究患者报告预后(PRO)工具的临床可行性,该工具旨在促进成人在门诊出血性疾病诊所的疼痛评估和支持有关疼痛的临床交流。方法工具开发包括由多学科临床医生和患者工作组进行的患者认知访谈和项目改进。该工具的临床可行性评估了一个小的临床样本的调查,在门诊出血性疾病诊所。疼痛治疗计划问卷(PTPQ)包含28项关于疼痛经历和用于控制或预防疼痛的治疗方法。结果完成可行性测试的参与者(n=42,男性62%)报告的平均疼痛评分为轻度(通常疼痛μ=2.4, SD=2.0),大多数(57.1%)报告在过去30天内持续疼痛。PTPQ完成时间中位数为5 ~ 7分钟,平均项目反应率为95.2%。大多数(95.2%)的参与者认为问卷易于理解,报告没有困难的理解项目,并建议不修改问卷。结论:在临床环境中进行的小样本初步测试表明,PTPQ是一种临床可行、可接受、病情特异性的PRO疼痛评估工具,适用于成年出血性疾病患者。需要进一步检测以确定PTPQ是否影响治疗决策和患者预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Living, Caring, Learning – The treatment centre as family for a woman with severe haemophilia Living, Caring, Learning – Reflections on the therapeutic relationship in haemophilia care Future Care Pathways – A report from the 1st workshop of the EHC Think Tank Workstream on Future Care Pathways The impact of the Contaminated Blood Scandal on the next generation: the state of the evidence Editorial – Living, Caring, Learning: How patients shape the specialist haemophilia nurse
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1