Development of a pictorial scale of pain intensity for patients with communication impairments: initial validation in a general population.

King's College, London School of Medicine.
Clinical medicine (London, England) (Impact Factor: 1.69). 11/2006; 6(6):580-5. DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.6-6-580
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study evaluated a new six-point ordinal scale for measuring pain intensity. Seventy-two participants aged between 23 and 87 years rated the intensity of 'present pain' as well as remembered episodes of 'severe' and 'mild' pain on the scale of pain intensity (SPIN), a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) and a 0-10 numeric scale, in random order. Retesting followed an intervening assessment. Participants' comments on the scales were analysed thematically. Spearman's correlation between scales all exceeded 0.78 (p<O.O01). Test-retest of the SPIN gave percentage agreements (weighted kappa) of present pain 69% (0.83), severe pain 94% (0.94) and mild pain 83% (0.85). Most participants preferred using an ordinal scale to the continuous VAS. Some found numbers easier to use whereas others found the SPIN more helpful. We conclude that the SPIN provides a valid measure of pain intensity in patients fully able to communicate their views and experiences. Investigation in patients with cognitive or communication impairments is now required.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to explore patients' views on the acceptability and feasibility of using colour to describe osteoarthritis (OA) pain, and whether colour could be used to communicate pain to healthcare professionals. METHODS: Six group interviews were conducted with 17 patients with knee OA. Discussion topics included first impressions about using colour to describe pain, whether participants could associate their pain with colour, how colours related to changes to intensity and different pain qualities, and whether they could envisage using colour to describe pain to healthcare professionals. RESULTS: The group interviews indicated that, although the idea of using colour was generally acceptable, it did not suit all participants as a way of describing their pain. The majority of participants chose red to describe high-intensity pain; the reasons given were because red symbolized inflammation, fire, anger and the stop signal in a traffic light system. Colours used to describe the absence of pain were chosen because of their association with positive emotional feelings, such as purity, calmness and happiness. A range of colours was chosen to represent changes in pain intensity. Aching pain was consistently identified as being associated with colours such as grey or black, whereas sharp pain was described using a wider selection of colours. The majority of participants thought that they would be able to use colour to describe their pain to healthcare professionals, although issues around the interpretability and standardization of colour were raised. CONCLUSIONS: For some patients, using colour to describe their pain experience may be a useful tool to improve doctor-patient communication. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Musculoskeletal Care 03/2014; 12(1). DOI:10.1002/msc.1048
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: Pain visual analogue scales (VAS) are commonly used in clinical trials and are often treated as an interval level scale without evidence that this is appropriate. This paper examines the internal construct validity and responsiveness of the pain VAS using Rasch analysis. Methods: Patients (n = 221, mean age 67, 58% female) with chronic stable joint pain (hip 40% or knee 60%) of mechanical origin waiting for joint replacement were included. Pain was scored on seven daily VASs. Rasch analysis was used to examine fit to the Rasch model. Responsiveness (Standardized Response Means, SRM) was examined on the raw ordinal data and the interval data generated from the Rasch analysis. Results: Baseline pain VAS scores fitted the Rasch model, although 15 aberrant cases impacted on unidimensionality. There was some local dependency between items but this did not significantly affect the person estimates of pain. Daily pain (item difficulty) was stable, suggesting that single measures can be used. Overall, the SRMs derived from ordinal data overestimated the true responsiveness by 59%. Changes over time at the lower and higher end of the scale were represented by large jumps in interval equivalent data points; in the middle of the scale the reverse was seen. Conclusions: The pain VAS is a valid tool for measuring pain at one point in time. However, the pain VAS does not behave linearly and SRMs vary along the trait of pain. Consequently, Minimum Clinically Important Differences using raw data, or change scores in general, are invalid as these will either under-or overestimate true change; raw pain VAS data should not be used as a primary outcome measure or to inform parametric-based Randomised Controlled Trial power calculations in research studies; and Rasch analysis should be used to convert ordinal data to interval data prior to data interpretation.
    PLoS ONE 06/2014; 9(6):e99485. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0099485 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 4, 2014