Development of a Questionnaire to Assess the Impact of Chronic Low Back Pain for Use in Regulated Clinical Trials
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the most common chronic pain condition and is associated with clinical, economic, social, and public health impacts. The effect of CLBP on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is significant. The symptoms and impacts most often associated with CLBP include pain and disability; patients most affected are often crippled by the condition. CLBP also affects patients’ mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being. A variety of self-report measures have been developed for the assessment of CLBP, such as the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); however, existing measures may not meet current regulatory expectation for the development, documentation, and use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) questionnaires (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 2009).
This report describes the qualitative development of the Chronic Low Back Pain Impact Questionnaire (CLBP-IQ), created for use in clinical trials.
A total of 22 CLBP patients recruited by clinicians participated in concept elicitation interviews to identify target measurement concepts. An instrument development team generated the instructions, items, and response options guided by patient input. Cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with 21 patients recruited by the same clinicians who recruited for concept elicitation interviews. During cognitive interviews, a draft instrument composed of 28 items was presented to individuals with CLBP to evaluate its readability and comprehensiveness. All research activities were conducted in the US.
During concept elicitation interviews, participants reported a variety of physical, emotional, and social impacts associated with CLBP. Participants also reported CLBP impacts on sleep, energy, daily activities, work, household activities, leisure activities, cognition, self-care, and sex life. Impacts deemed simple, important, and relevant to CLBP patients became targets of measurement for the CLBP-IQ. During cognitive debriefing, seventeen items were interpreted as intended by at least 90 % of participants, and no items were interpreted incorrectly by more than five patients (24 %). Additionally, seventeen items were experienced by at least 90 % of participants, and no single item was experienced by less than 67 % of participants (n = 14).
The CLBP-IQ was developed in accordance with current US Food and Drug Administration guidance on instrument development. Results from both concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews support the content validity of the CLBP-IQ in patients with CLBP. Future development should proceed with psychometric evaluation.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims; 2009.
- Andersson G. The epidemiology of spinal disorders. In: Frymoyer J, editor. The adult spine: principles and practice. New York: Raven Press; 1997. p. 93–141.
- Deyo RA, Tsui-Wu YJ. Descriptive epidemiology of low-back pain and its related medical care in the United States. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987;12(3):264–8. CrossRef
- Manchikanti L, Singh V, Datta S, Cohen SP, Hirsch JA. Comprehensive review of epidemiology, scope, and impact of spinal pain. Pain Physician. 2009;12(4):E35–70.
- Freburger JK, Holmes GM, Agans RP, Jackman AM, Darter JD, Wallace AS, et al. The rising prevalence of chronic low back pain. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(3):251–8. CrossRef
- Palmer KT, Walsh K, Bendall H, Cooper C, Coggon D. Back pain in Britain: comparison of two prevalence surveys at an interval of 10 years. BMJ. 2000;320(7249):1577–8. CrossRef
- Andersson GB. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet. 1999;354(9178):581–5. CrossRef
- Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Street JH, Barlow W. Predicting poor outcomes for back pain seen in primary care using patients’ own criteria. Spine. 1996;21(24):2900–7. CrossRef
- Epping-Jordan JE, Wahlgren DR, Williams RA, Pruitt SD, Slater MA, Patterson TL, et al. Transition to chronic pain in men with low back pain: predictive relationships among pain intensity, disability, and depressive symptoms. Health Psychol. 1998;17(5):421–7. CrossRef
- Nunez M, Sanchez A, Nunez E, Casals T, Alegre C, Munoz-Gomez J. Patients’ perceptions of health related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis and chronic low back pain. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(1):93–102. CrossRef
- Koes BW, van Tulder MW. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. Br Med J. 2006;332(7560):1430–4. CrossRef
- Boden SD, Zdeblick TA, Sandhu HS, Heim SE. The use of rhBMP-2 in interbody fusion cages. Definitive evidence of osteoinduction in humans: a preliminary report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(3):376–81. CrossRef
- Rives PA, Douglass AB. Evaluation and treatment of low back pain in family practice. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004;17(Suppl):S23–31. CrossRef
- Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, et al. Content validity-establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. 2011;14(8):967–77. CrossRef
- Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, et al. Content validity-establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 2-assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011;14(8):978–88. CrossRef
- PROMIS; 2013. http://www.nihpromis.org/.
- Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983;8(2):141–4. CrossRef
- Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Measurement properties of the RM-18. A modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Scale. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(20):2416–21. CrossRef
- Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66(8):271–3.
- Williams NH, Wilkinson C, Russell IT. Extending the Aberdeen Back Pain Scale to include the whole spine: a set of outcome measures for the neck, upper and lower back. Pain. 2001;94(3):261–74. CrossRef
- Greenough CG, Fraser RD. Assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(1):36–41. CrossRef
- Lawlis GF, Cuencas R, Selby D, McCoy CE. The development of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. An assessment of the impact of spinal pain on behavior. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989;14(5):511–6. CrossRef
- Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82. CrossRef
- Charmaz K. Grounded theory. In: Smith JA, Harre R, Van Langenhove L, editors. Rethinking methods in psychology. London: Sage; 1995. p. 27–49. CrossRef
- Glaser BG, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Transaction; 1967.
- User’s Manual for Atlas.ti 5.0 Berlin: Atlas.ti [computer program]. Version 5.0. Berlin; 2004.
- Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage; 1998.
- Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA. 1995;273(1):59–65. CrossRef
- Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publications; 1994.
- Bowen GA. Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(3):Article 2.
- Clark L, Watson D. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:309–19. CrossRef
- DeVellis R. Scale development: theories and applications. Newbury Park: Sage Publication Inc; 1994.
- Dillman D. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. New York: Wiley; 2000.
- Stone MH. Substantive scale construction. J Appl Meas. 2003;4(3):282–97.
- Presser S, Rothgeb JM, Couper MP, Lessler JT, Martin E, Martin J, et al. Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. Hoboken: Wiley; 2004. CrossRef
- Stull DE, Leidy NK, Parasuraman B, Chassany O. Optimal recall periods for patient-reported outcomes: challenges and potential solutions. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(4):929–42. CrossRef
- Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther. 2002;82(1):8–24.
- Kopec JA. Measuring functional outcomes in persons with back pain: a review of back-specific questionnaires. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3110–4. CrossRef
- Hammersly M. The dilemma of qualitative method: Herbert Blumer and the Chicago tradition. London: Routledge; 1990.
- Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Designing a naturalistic inquiry. Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage Publications; 1985. p. 221–49.
- Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Katz NP, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113(1–2):9–19. CrossRef
- Herr KA, Spratt K, Mobily PR, Richardson G. Pain intensity assessment in older adults: use of experimental pain to compare psychometric properties and usability of selected pain scales with younger adults. Clin J Pain. 2004;20(4):207–19. CrossRef
- Development of a Questionnaire to Assess the Impact of Chronic Low Back Pain for Use in Regulated Clinical Trials
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
Volume 6, Issue 4 , pp 291-305
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer International Publishing
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors