Development of a Questionnaire to Assess the Impact of Chronic Low Back Pain for Use in Regulated Clinical Trials
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.
KeywordsOswestry Disability Index Cognitive Interview Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire Concept Elicitation Cognitive Debriefing Interview
The authors would like to acknowledge Andrea Zeytoonjian, Megan Daggett, Roger Lamoureux, and Gina Kevane for their assistance in the conduct of the research reported herein.
Funding source Endo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the research activities presented here for the development of the Chronic Low Back Pain Impact Questionnaire. A. L. S. is the designated guarantor of the content contained in this manuscript.
Author contributions All authors contributed equally to this work. All authors discussed the results and their implications and commented on the manuscript at all stages.
Conflicts of interest Authors J. S., C. E., F. P., and A. L. S. are or were employees of Adelphi Values (formerly Mapi Values), which received compensation from Endo Pharmaceuticals for the conduct of the research activities reported here as well as the composition of the present manuscript. Author K. H. S. is an employee of Endo Pharmaceuticals.
- 1.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.Google Scholar
- 2.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.Google Scholar
- 14.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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.PROMIS; 2013. http://www.nihpromis.org/.
- 25.Glaser BG, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Transaction; 1967.Google Scholar
- 26.User’s Manual for Atlas.ti 5.0 Berlin: Atlas.ti [computer program]. Version 5.0. Berlin; 2004.Google Scholar
- 27.Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage; 1998.Google Scholar
- 29.Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publications; 1994.Google Scholar
- 30.Bowen GA. Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(3):Article 2.Google Scholar
- 32.DeVellis R. Scale development: theories and applications. Newbury Park: Sage Publication Inc; 1994.Google Scholar
- 33.Dillman D. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. New York: Wiley; 2000.Google Scholar
- 39.Hammersly M. The dilemma of qualitative method: Herbert Blumer and the Chicago tradition. London: Routledge; 1990.Google Scholar
- 40.Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Designing a naturalistic inquiry. Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage Publications; 1985. p. 221–49.Google Scholar