Background

In 2014, the National Institutes of Health Pain Consortium Research Task Force recommended that patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) be stratified by its impact on their lives. They proposed the Impact Stratification Score (ISS) to help guide therapy and facilitate study comparability. The ISS has been evaluated as a continuous measure, but not for use as a stratification or classification scheme.

Objectives

Identify the characteristics of successful schemes to inform the use of the ISS for stratification or classification.

Study design

Scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature.

Methods

Search of PubMed, CINAHL, and APA PsycInfo to identify patient self-report-based classification schemes applicable to CLBP. Data were captured on the methods used for each scheme's development, the domains covered, their scoring criteria and what the classification has successfully measured. The study was reviewed and approved by the RAND Human Subjects Protection Committee (2019-0651-AM02).

Results

The search identified 87 published articles about the development and testing of 5 classification schemes: 1) The Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Screening Tool, 2) Multiaxial Assessment of Pain, 3) Graded Chronic Pain Scale, 4) Back Pain Classification Scale, and 5) Chronic Pain Risk Score. All have been shown to be predictive of future outcomes and the STarT Back has been found useful in identifying effective classification-specific treatment. Each scheme had a different classification scoring structure, was developed using different methods, and 3 included domains not found in the ISS.

Limitations

Expanding the search to other databases may have identified more classification schemes. Our minimum number of publications inclusion criterion eliminated dozens of cluster analyses, some of which may have eventually been replicated.

Conclusions

The methods used to develop these successful classification schemes, especially those that use straightforward scoring schemes, should be considered for use in the development of a scheme based on the ISS.

Background

The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician and Group adult survey (CG-CAHPS) includes 34 items used to monitor the quality of ambulatory care from the patient's perspective. CG-CAHPS includes items assessing access to care, provider communication, and courtesy and respect of office staff. Stakeholders have expressed concerns about the length of the CG-CAHPS survey.

Objectives

This paper explores the impact on reliability and validity of the CAHPS domain scores of reducing the numbers of items used to assess the 3 core CG-CAHPS domains (Provider Communication, Access to Care, and Courteous and Helpful Office Staff).

Research design

CG-CAHPS data reported here consist of 136,725 patients across 4 datasets including ambulatory clinics, patient-centered medical homes, and Accountable Care Organizations. Analyses are conducted in parallel across the 4 settings to allow evaluations across data source.

Analyses

Multiple regression and ANOVA techniques were used to evaluate reliability for shorter sets of items. Site-level correlations with the overall rating of the provider were compared to evaluate the impact on validity. The change in practices' rank-ordering as a function of domain revision is also reported.

Results

Findings suggest that the Provider Communication (6 items) and Access (5 items) domains can be reduced to as few as 2 items each and Office Staff (2 items) can be reduced to a single item without a substantial loss in reliability or content.

Conclusions

The performance of several of the reduced-length options for CG-CAHPS domains closely matches the full versions and may be useful in health care settings where the full-length survey is impractical due to time or cost constraints.

Background

The effectiveness of community clinics and health centers' efforts to improve the quality of care might be modified by clinics' workplace climates. Several surveys to measure workplace climate exist, but their relationships to each other and to distinguishable dimensions of workplace climate are unknown.

Objective

To assess the psychometric properties of a survey instrument combining items from several existing surveys of workplace climate and to generate a shorter instrument for future use.

Materials and methods

We fielded a 106-item survey, which included items from 9 existing instruments, to all clinicians and staff members (n=781) working in 30 California community clinics and health centers, receiving 628 responses (80% response rate). We performed exploratory factor analysis of survey responses, followed by confirmatory factor analysis of 200 reserved survey responses. We generated a new, shorter survey instrument of items with strong factor loadings.

Results

Six factors, including 44 survey items, emerged from the exploratory analysis. Two factors (Clinic Workload and Teamwork) were independent from the others. The remaining 4 factors (staff relationships, quality improvement orientation, managerial readiness for change, and staff readiness for change) were highly correlated, indicating that these represented dimensions of a higher-order factor we called "Clinic Functionality." This 2-level, 6-factor model fit the data well in the exploratory and confirmatory samples. For all but 1 factor, fewer than 20 survey responses were needed to achieve clinic-level reliability >0.7.

Conclusions

Survey instruments designed to measure workplace climate have substantial overlap. The relatively parsimonious item set we identified might help target and tailor clinics' quality improvement efforts.

Background

Substantial investment has gone into research on the efficacy and effectiveness of pharmaceutical and nonpharmacologic interventions for chronic pain. However, synthesizing this extensive literature is challenging because of differences in the outcome measures used in studies of similar or competing interventions. The absence of a common metric makes it difficult to replicate findings, pool data from multiple studies, resolve conflicting conclusions, or reach consensus when interpreting findings.

Methods

This study has a seven-member Advisory Council of chronic pain experts. Preliminary analyses will be performed on data from several large existing datasets; intermediate analyses will be performed using primary data collected from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk); and cross-validation will use primary data collected from a nationally-representative, probability-based panel. Target sample size for both primary datasets is 1500. The three study aims are as follows: Aim 1 will develop and evaluate links between the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) and legacy measures used for chronic pain such as the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). We will assess the best method of score linking and create crosswalk tables. Aim 2 will evaluate and refine the Impact Stratification Score (ISS) based on 9 PROMIS-29 items and proposed by the NIH Research Task Force on chronic low back pain. We will evaluate the ISS in terms of other indicators of condition severity and patient prognosis and outcomes and identify cut-points to stratify chronic pain patients into subgroups. Aim 3 will evaluate the strengths and limitations of MTurk as a data collection platform for estimating chronic pain by comparing its data to other data sources.

Discussion

The accomplishment of Aims 1 and 2 will allow direct comparison of results across past and future studies of chronic pain. These comparisons will help us to understand different results from seemingly similar studies, and to determine the relative effectiveness of all pharmaceutical and nonpharmacologic interventions for chronic pain across different trials. Aim 3 findings will provide valuable information to researchers about the pros and cons of using the MTurk platform for research-based data collection.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04426812 ; June 10, 2020.

Introduction

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Smoking Initiative has developed item banks for assessing six smoking behaviors and biopsychosocial correlates of smoking among adult cigarette smokers. The goal of this study is to evaluate the performance of the Spanish version of the PROMIS smoking item banks as compared to the original banks developed in English.

Methods

The six PROMIS banks for daily smokers were translated into Spanish and administered to a sample of Spanish-speaking adult daily smokers in the United States (N = 302). We first evaluated the unidimensionality of each bank using confirmatory factor analysis. We then conducted a two-group item response theory calibration, including an item response theory-based Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis by language of administration (Spanish vs. English). Finally, we generated full bank and short form scores for the translated banks and evaluated their psychometric performance.

Results

Unidimensionality of the Spanish smoking item banks was supported by confirmatory factor analysis results. Out of a total of 109 items that were evaluated for language DIF, seven items in three of the six banks were identified as having levels of DIF that exceeded an established criterion. The psychometric performance of the Spanish daily smoker banks is largely comparable to that of the English versions.

Conclusions

The Spanish PROMIS smoking item banks are highly similar, but not entirely equivalent, to the original English versions. The parameters from these two-group calibrations can be used to generate comparable bank scores across the two language versions.

Implications

In this study, we developed a Spanish version of the PROMIS smoking toolkit, which was originally designed and developed for English speakers. With the growing Spanish-speaking population, it is important to make the toolkit more accessible by translating the items and calibrating the Spanish version to be comparable with English-language scores. This study provided the translated item banks and short forms, comparable unbiased scores for Spanish speakers and evaluations of the psychometric properties of the new Spanish toolkit.

Introduction

The Impact Stratification Score (ISS) is a measure of the impact of chronic low back pain (LBP) consisting of nine Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) items, but no studies have examined the ISS or its association with psychological symptoms in military samples. This study examines longitudinal associations between psychological symptoms and the ISS among military service members.

Material and methods

The study involved secondary data analysis of a sample of active duty U.S. military service members aged 18-50 years with LBP (n = 733). Participants completed the PROMIS-29 at three time points during treatment: baseline (time 1, T1), week 6 of treatment (time 2, T2), and week 12 of treatment (time 3, T3). The impact of LBP was quantified using the ISS (ranging from 8 = least impact to 50 = greatest impact). Psychological symptoms were assessed as PROMIS-29 anxiety and depression scores. Separate autoregressive cross-lagged models examined reciprocal associations of ISSs with anxiety, depression, and emotional distress scores from T1 to T3.

Results

Within each time point, the ISS was significantly and positively correlated with anxiety and depression. In autoregressive cross-lagged models, anxiety and depression predicted the ISS at the next time point and associations were similar in magnitude (e.g., anxiety T2 to ISS T3: β = 0.12, P < .001; depression T2 to ISS T3: β = 0.12, P <.001). The ISS did not predict future depression or emotional distress scores at any time point, but the ISS at T2 was significantly, positively associated with anxiety scores at T3 (β = 0.07, P = .04).

Conclusion

Psychological symptoms consistently and prospectively predict the impact of LBP as measured by the ISS among service members undergoing pain treatment. The ISS may also be associated with future anxiety but not depression. PROMIS-29 anxiety and depression items may be useful adjunctive measures to consider when using the ISS to support LBP treatment planning and monitoring with service members.

Among those with low back pain (LBP), individuals with chronic LBP (CLBP) face different treatment recommendations and incur the majority of suffering and costs. However, the way CLBP has been defined varies greatly. This study used a scoping review and qualitative and quantitative analyses of data from LBP patients to explore this variation. CLBP in most recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was defined by duration of pain, most commonly ≥3 months. However, individuals with LBP most often define CLBP by frequency. CLBP has also been defined using a combination of duration and frequency (16% of RCTs and 20% of individuals), including 6% of recent RCTs that followed the NIH Pain Consortium research task force (RTF) definition. Although not a defining characteristic of CLBP for individuals, almost 15% of recent RCTs required CLBP to have a healthcare provider diagnosis. In our LBP sample moving from ≥3 months to the RTF definition reduced the CLBP group size by 25% and resulted in a group that used more pain management options and reported worse health across all outcome measures. A pain duration definition offers ease of application. However, refinements to this definition (eg, RTF) can identify those who may be better intervention targets. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the definitions used for CLBP by researchers and individuals, and the impact of these definitions on pain management and health outcomes. This information may help researchers choose better study inclusion criteria and clinicians to better understand their patients' beliefs about CLBP.