13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Psychometric properties of the Polish language version of the Chronic Pain Coping Inventory-42 for patients treated surgically due to herniated lumbar discs and spondylotic changes

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The development of a pain-management program tailored to the specific needs of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) requires the proper assessment of psychosocial factors affecting each individual. The Chronic Pain Coping Inventory-42 (CPCI-42) refers to coping strategies, which are commonly defined as the cognitive and behavioral techniques an individual may resort to in stressful or demanding situations. Evidence from a number of sources suggests that differences in pain coping strategies may significantly affect how an individual deals with chronic pain. We aimed to adapt the CPCI-42 to Polish cultural conditions (PL-CPCI-42) and then verify its psychometric properties based on a group of patients treated surgically due to herniated lumbar discs and coexisting spondylotic changes.

          Material/Methods

          The average age of the study participants (n=90) was 43.47 years (SD 10.21). The average duration of chronic low back pain (CLBP) was 49.37 months (SD 64.71). Lumbosacral spine X-rays and magnetic resonance imaging scans were performed and all patients completed the PL-CPCI-42 and the Polish versions of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS-PL) twice. Internal consistency of the PL-CPCI-42, floor and ceiling effects, test-retest reliability, and criterion validity were analyzed.

          Results

          Resting, guarding, and coping self-statements were frequently used as coping strategies both in the test and in the retest, in contrast to relaxation and exercise/stretch. The NPRS-PL result was 5.70 cm in the test and 5.66 in the retest. Cronbach’s alpha values were recorded for the asking for assistance, coping self-statements, and seeking social support domains (0.83, 0.80, 0.83, respectively). Test-retest reliability of the PL-CPCI-42 varied from 0.53 (relaxation domain) to 0.84 (asking for assistance and coping self-statements domains).

          Conclusions

          The present study provides evidence of the validity of the PL-CPCI-42 and supports its usefulness in assessing chronic pain coping strategies, which are especially important to pain adjustment and in the creation of multidisciplinary pain management programs for patients with severe CLBP.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Psychometric Theory.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain.

            Cohort study of patients with low back pain (LBP) receiving physical therapy. To examine the responsiveness characteristics of the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) in patients with LBP using a variety of methods. Although several studies have assessed the reliability and validity of the NPRS, few studies have characterized its responsiveness in patients with LBP. Determination of change on the NPRS during 1 and 4 weeks was examined by calculating mean change, standardized effect size, Guyatt Responsiveness Index, area under a receiver operating characteristic curve, minimum clinically important difference, and minimum detectable change. Change in the NPRS from baseline to the 1 and 4-week follow-up was compared to the average of the patient and therapist's perceived improvement using the 15-point Global Rating of Change scale. The majority of patients had clinically meaningful improvement after both 1 and 4 weeks of rehabilitation. The standard error of measure was equal to 1.02, corresponding to a minimum detectable change of 2 points. The area under the curve at the 1 and 4-week follow-up was 0.72 (0.62, 0.81) and 0.92 (0.86, 0.97), respectively. The minimum clinically important difference at the 1 and 4-week follow-up corresponded to a change of 2.2 and 1.5 points, respectively. Clinicians can be confident that a 2-point change on the NPRS represents clinically meaningful change that exceeds the bounds of measurement error.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A comparison of pain rating scales by sampling from clinical trial data.

              The goals of this study were to examine agreement and estimate differences in sensitivity between pain assessment scales. Multiple simultaneous pain assessments by patients in acute pain after oral surgery were used to compare a four-category verbal rating scale (VRS-4) and an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS-11) with a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). The sensitivity of the scales (i.e., their ability [power] to detect differences between treatments) was compared in a simulation model by sampling from true pairs of observations using varying treatment differences of predetermined size. There was considerable variability in VAS scores within each VRS-4 or NRS-11 category both between patients and for repeated measures from the same patient. Simulation experiments showed that the VAS was systematically more powerful than the VRS-4 in all simulations performed. The sensitivity of the VAS and NRS-11 was approximately equal. In this acute pain model, the VRS-4 was less sensitive than the VAS. The simulation results demonstrated similar sensitivity of the NRS-11 and VAS when comparing acute postoperative pain intensity. The choice between the VAS and NRS-11 can thus be based on subjective preferences.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Med Sci Monit
                Med. Sci. Monit
                Medical Science Monitor
                Medical Science Monitor : International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research
                International Scientific Literature, Inc.
                1234-1010
                1643-3750
                2014
                14 May 2014
                : 20
                : 789-801
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Social Sciences, Higher School of Safety in Poznań, Poznań, Poland
                [2 ]Department of Neurosurgery and Neurotraumatology, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland
                [3 ]Department of Pediatric Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Ewa Misterska, e-mail: emisterska1@ 123456wp.pl
                [A]

                Study Design

                [B]

                Data Collection

                [C]

                Statistical Analysis

                [D]

                Data Interpretation

                [E]

                Manuscript Preparation

                [F]

                Literature Search

                [G]

                Funds Collection

                Article
                889728
                10.12659/MSM.889728
                4031224
                24824781
                df8d540c-ec3c-47e4-8808-1286da100299
                © Med Sci Monit, 2014

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License

                History
                : 31 August 2013
                : 30 January 2014
                Categories
                Product Investigations

                validation study,cpci-42,chronic pain coping styles,lumbar disc herniation,chronic pain - prevention & control

                Comments

                Comment on this article