Validation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Intensity and Brief Pain Inventory During Pregnancy.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING Western Journal of Nursing Research Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-08 DOI:10.1177/01939459251317270
Julie Vignato, Yelena Perkhounkova, Hannah Marilim, Jihye Lee, Maria Hein, Donna Santillan, Mark Santillan
{"title":"Validation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Intensity and Brief Pain Inventory During Pregnancy.","authors":"Julie Vignato, Yelena Perkhounkova, Hannah Marilim, Jihye Lee, Maria Hein, Donna Santillan, Mark Santillan","doi":"10.1177/01939459251317270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We sought to (1) validate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Intensity Short Form 3a measure and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) for assessing pain during pregnancy and (2) evaluate pain in a sample of pregnant individuals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pregnant individuals (N = 196) were prospectively surveyed: n = 171 up to 22 weeks gestational age, n = 123 during their third trimester of pregnancy, and n = 98 both times. Additional measures included SPRINT Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Tool, Neurological Quality of Life, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and anxiety subscale, and Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire. Validity evidence examined included content validity, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and relevant criterion relationships.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Content validity analysis suggests that the PROMIS pain measure was easy to use and interpret while the BPI provided more detail. However, BPI questions regarding medication usage and relief were unclear to some pregnant individuals. In addition, the relationships among pain ratings were stronger than relationships between pain ratings and measures intended to assess other constructs suggesting convergent and discriminant validity. Relationships with relevant criterions were presented for both the PROMIS and BPI by comparing ratings of pain intensity and severity for pregnant individuals with and without areas of pain reported on BPI.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results indicate that PROMIS and BPI provided valid information on pain intensity or severity for our perinatal sample. Depending on the research question, the PROMIS pain or BPI may be more appropriate to an individual study. Either measure could also be included in an electronic health record for accurate pain assessment in clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":49365,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Nursing Research","volume":" ","pages":"209-220"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Nursing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01939459251317270","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: We sought to (1) validate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Intensity Short Form 3a measure and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) for assessing pain during pregnancy and (2) evaluate pain in a sample of pregnant individuals.

Methods: Pregnant individuals (N = 196) were prospectively surveyed: n = 171 up to 22 weeks gestational age, n = 123 during their third trimester of pregnancy, and n = 98 both times. Additional measures included SPRINT Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Tool, Neurological Quality of Life, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and anxiety subscale, and Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire. Validity evidence examined included content validity, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and relevant criterion relationships.

Results: Content validity analysis suggests that the PROMIS pain measure was easy to use and interpret while the BPI provided more detail. However, BPI questions regarding medication usage and relief were unclear to some pregnant individuals. In addition, the relationships among pain ratings were stronger than relationships between pain ratings and measures intended to assess other constructs suggesting convergent and discriminant validity. Relationships with relevant criterions were presented for both the PROMIS and BPI by comparing ratings of pain intensity and severity for pregnant individuals with and without areas of pain reported on BPI.

Conclusion: Results indicate that PROMIS and BPI provided valid information on pain intensity or severity for our perinatal sample. Depending on the research question, the PROMIS pain or BPI may be more appropriate to an individual study. Either measure could also be included in an electronic health record for accurate pain assessment in clinical settings.

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
妊娠期疼痛强度和简短疼痛量表的患者报告结果测量信息系统的验证。
目的:我们寻求(1)验证患者报告结果测量信息系统(PROMIS)疼痛强度短表3a测量和简短疼痛量表(BPI)用于评估妊娠期间疼痛;(2)评估孕妇样本的疼痛。方法:前瞻性调查孕妇(N = 196): N = 171孕周至22周,N = 123孕晚期,N = 98两次。附加测量包括SPRINT创伤后应激障碍工具、神经生活质量、爱丁堡产后抑郁量表和焦虑子量表、童年不良经历问卷。检验的效度证据包括内容效度、信度、收敛效度和区别效度,以及相关的判据关系。结果:内容效度分析表明PROMIS疼痛测量易于使用和解释,而BPI提供了更多的细节。然而,一些孕妇不清楚BPI关于药物使用和缓解的问题。此外,疼痛评分之间的关系比疼痛评分与旨在评估其他构念的措施之间的关系更强,表明趋同效度和区别效度。通过比较有和没有BPI报告疼痛区域的孕妇的疼痛强度和严重程度评分,给出了PROMIS和BPI与相关标准的关系。结论:结果表明PROMIS和BPI为围产儿样本提供了有效的疼痛强度或严重程度信息。根据研究问题,PROMIS疼痛或BPI可能更适合于个别研究。任何一种测量方法都可以包含在电子健康记录中,以便在临床环境中准确评估疼痛。
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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Western Journal of Nursing Research (WJNR) is a widely read and respected peer-reviewed journal published twelve times a year providing an innovative forum for nurse researchers, students, and clinical practitioners to participate in ongoing scholarly dialogue. WJNR publishes research reports, systematic reviews, methodology papers, and invited special papers. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Link Between Sense of Coherence, Cognitive Flexibility, and Well-Being in Patients With Schizophrenia: A Cross-Sectional Study. A Mixed-Methods Study of Daily Bedtime Routines of African American Family Caregivers. Fraud Detection and Prevention in Online Research: Lessons Learned and Recommendations. Culturally Adapted Lifestyle and Mental Health Intervention for Low-Income Pregnant Women: A Feasibility Study. Nurses' Contributions to Virtual Care Delivery in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.
×
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:604180095
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