How do we measure the adequacy of cancer pain management? Testing the performance of 4 commonly used measures and steps towards measurement refinement

Author:

Cabric Vanja,Harrison Rebecca,Gauthier Lynn R.ORCID,Graham Carol A,Gagliese Lucia

Abstract

AbstractAlthough pain is the most common and disabling cancer symptom requiring management, the best index of cancer pain management adequacy is unknown. While the Pain Management Index is most commonly used, other indices have included relief, satisfaction, and pain intensity. We evaluated their correlations and agreement, compared their biopsychosocial correlates, and investigated whether they represented a single construct reflecting the adequacy of cancer pain management in 269 people with advanced cancer and pain. Despite moderate-to-severe average pain in 52.8% of participants, 85.1% had PMI scores suggesting adequate analgesia, pain relief was moderate and satisfaction was high. Correlations and agreement were low-to-moderate, suggesting low construct validity. Although the correlates of pain management adequacy were multidimensional, including lower pain interference, neuropathic and nociceptive pain, and catastrophizing, shorter cancer duration, and greater physical symptoms, no single index captured this multidimensionality. Principal component analysis demonstrated a single underlying construct, thus we constructed the Adequacy of Cancer Pain Management from factor loadings. It had somewhat better agreement, however correlates were limited to pain interference and neuropathic pain. This study demonstrates the psychometric shortcomings of commonly used indices. We provide suggestions for future research to improve measurement, a critical step in optimizing cancer pain management.PerspectiveThe Pain Management Index and other commonly used indices of cancer pain management adequacy have poor construct validity. This study provides suggestions to improve the measurement of the adequacy of cancer pain management.

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3