Assessing change in chronic pain severity

the chronic pain grade compared with retrospective perceptions

Alison Margaret Elliott, Blair Hamilton Smith, Philip Christopher Hannaford, William Cairns Stewart Smith, W. A. Chambers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is no standard method of measuring change in chronic pain severity. Clinical trials commonly use serial assessment scales, completed at two points in time, to estimate change in pain severity, while clinicians usually ask patients to make a retrospective assessment of change. How the two methods compare is not known. AIM: To assess different methods of measuring change in chronic pain severity, by comparing changes in scores on a serial measure of chronic pain severity using the Chronic Pain Grade (CPG) questionnaire and responders' retrospective perception of change in pain severity. DESIGN OF STUDY: Postal self-completion questionnaires. SETTING: The Grampian region of Scotland. METHOD: Postal questionnaires were sent in March and September 1998 to a random sample of 535 adults with chronic pain, drawn from responders to a postal survey of the region conducted in 1996. RESULTS: Corrected response rates of 87.5% and 90.7% were obtained. Over a six-month period poor levels of agreement were found, with responders' retrospective perceptions mirroring recorded changes in 41.8% of individuals (kappa = 0.081). A low partial correlation coefficient between the two measures (-0.209) was also found. Over a two-year period there were again poor levels of agreement, with responders' retrospective perceptions mirronng recorded changes in 35.2% of individuals (kappa = 0.071). A low partial correlation coefficient (-0.401) was again found. CONCLUSION: There was poor agreement and low correlation between two commonly used methods for assessing change in pain severity over time. This finding has important
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)269-274
Number of pages5
JournalThe British Journal of General Practice
Volume52
Issue number477
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2002

Fingerprint

Chronic Pain
Pain
Scotland
Clinical Trials
Surveys and Questionnaires

Cite this

Assessing change in chronic pain severity : the chronic pain grade compared with retrospective perceptions. / Elliott, Alison Margaret; Smith, Blair Hamilton; Hannaford, Philip Christopher; Smith, William Cairns Stewart; Chambers, W. A.

In: The British Journal of General Practice, Vol. 52, No. 477, 04.2002, p. 269-274.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{969fb201c42a4a8ba792da2c4f0aa233,
title = "Assessing change in chronic pain severity: the chronic pain grade compared with retrospective perceptions",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: There is no standard method of measuring change in chronic pain severity. Clinical trials commonly use serial assessment scales, completed at two points in time, to estimate change in pain severity, while clinicians usually ask patients to make a retrospective assessment of change. How the two methods compare is not known. AIM: To assess different methods of measuring change in chronic pain severity, by comparing changes in scores on a serial measure of chronic pain severity using the Chronic Pain Grade (CPG) questionnaire and responders' retrospective perception of change in pain severity. DESIGN OF STUDY: Postal self-completion questionnaires. SETTING: The Grampian region of Scotland. METHOD: Postal questionnaires were sent in March and September 1998 to a random sample of 535 adults with chronic pain, drawn from responders to a postal survey of the region conducted in 1996. RESULTS: Corrected response rates of 87.5{\%} and 90.7{\%} were obtained. Over a six-month period poor levels of agreement were found, with responders' retrospective perceptions mirroring recorded changes in 41.8{\%} of individuals (kappa = 0.081). A low partial correlation coefficient between the two measures (-0.209) was also found. Over a two-year period there were again poor levels of agreement, with responders' retrospective perceptions mirronng recorded changes in 35.2{\%} of individuals (kappa = 0.071). A low partial correlation coefficient (-0.401) was again found. CONCLUSION: There was poor agreement and low correlation between two commonly used methods for assessing change in pain severity over time. This finding has important",
author = "Elliott, {Alison Margaret} and Smith, {Blair Hamilton} and Hannaford, {Philip Christopher} and Smith, {William Cairns Stewart} and Chambers, {W. A.}",
year = "2002",
month = "4",
language = "English",
volume = "52",
pages = "269--274",
journal = "The British Journal of General Practice",
issn = "0960-1643",
publisher = "Royal College of General Practitioners",
number = "477",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing change in chronic pain severity

T2 - the chronic pain grade compared with retrospective perceptions

AU - Elliott, Alison Margaret

AU - Smith, Blair Hamilton

AU - Hannaford, Philip Christopher

AU - Smith, William Cairns Stewart

AU - Chambers, W. A.

PY - 2002/4

Y1 - 2002/4

N2 - BACKGROUND: There is no standard method of measuring change in chronic pain severity. Clinical trials commonly use serial assessment scales, completed at two points in time, to estimate change in pain severity, while clinicians usually ask patients to make a retrospective assessment of change. How the two methods compare is not known. AIM: To assess different methods of measuring change in chronic pain severity, by comparing changes in scores on a serial measure of chronic pain severity using the Chronic Pain Grade (CPG) questionnaire and responders' retrospective perception of change in pain severity. DESIGN OF STUDY: Postal self-completion questionnaires. SETTING: The Grampian region of Scotland. METHOD: Postal questionnaires were sent in March and September 1998 to a random sample of 535 adults with chronic pain, drawn from responders to a postal survey of the region conducted in 1996. RESULTS: Corrected response rates of 87.5% and 90.7% were obtained. Over a six-month period poor levels of agreement were found, with responders' retrospective perceptions mirroring recorded changes in 41.8% of individuals (kappa = 0.081). A low partial correlation coefficient between the two measures (-0.209) was also found. Over a two-year period there were again poor levels of agreement, with responders' retrospective perceptions mirronng recorded changes in 35.2% of individuals (kappa = 0.071). A low partial correlation coefficient (-0.401) was again found. CONCLUSION: There was poor agreement and low correlation between two commonly used methods for assessing change in pain severity over time. This finding has important

AB - BACKGROUND: There is no standard method of measuring change in chronic pain severity. Clinical trials commonly use serial assessment scales, completed at two points in time, to estimate change in pain severity, while clinicians usually ask patients to make a retrospective assessment of change. How the two methods compare is not known. AIM: To assess different methods of measuring change in chronic pain severity, by comparing changes in scores on a serial measure of chronic pain severity using the Chronic Pain Grade (CPG) questionnaire and responders' retrospective perception of change in pain severity. DESIGN OF STUDY: Postal self-completion questionnaires. SETTING: The Grampian region of Scotland. METHOD: Postal questionnaires were sent in March and September 1998 to a random sample of 535 adults with chronic pain, drawn from responders to a postal survey of the region conducted in 1996. RESULTS: Corrected response rates of 87.5% and 90.7% were obtained. Over a six-month period poor levels of agreement were found, with responders' retrospective perceptions mirroring recorded changes in 41.8% of individuals (kappa = 0.081). A low partial correlation coefficient between the two measures (-0.209) was also found. Over a two-year period there were again poor levels of agreement, with responders' retrospective perceptions mirronng recorded changes in 35.2% of individuals (kappa = 0.071). A low partial correlation coefficient (-0.401) was again found. CONCLUSION: There was poor agreement and low correlation between two commonly used methods for assessing change in pain severity over time. This finding has important

M3 - Article

VL - 52

SP - 269

EP - 274

JO - The British Journal of General Practice

JF - The British Journal of General Practice

SN - 0960-1643

IS - 477

ER -