Validity and responsiveness of the French version of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire in chronic low back pain
- 457 Downloads
The assessment of a broad range of biopsychosocial aspects is important in the rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) for the prediction of outcome as well as for evaluation. The objective of this study was to test the responsiveness, construct validity and predictive value of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ) compared to other instruments widely used to assess biopsychosocial aspects in patients with CLBP.
111 patients with CLBP admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation completed a set of questionnaires on biopsychosocial aspects at baseline and at discharge. Ninety-eight patients responded at three months for an assessment of the return to work status. Responsiveness of the OMPSQ, the ability to detect change in the construct of interest, was investigated by a set of hypotheses on correlations with widely used questionnaires. We tested the hypothesis that the changes in the OMPSQ would vary along with the responses in the Patient’s Global Impression of Change. Prediction of disability at discharge, work status at three months and time to return to work was evaluated with linear, logistic and cox regression models.
The OMPSQ showed good predictive values for disability and return to work and construct validity of the instrument was corroborated. Seventy-nine percent of our hypotheses for responsiveness could be confirmed, with the OMPSQ showing the second highest change during the rehabilitation.
The OMPSQ can also be applied in patients with CLBP, but for the assessment of change in psychosocial variables one should add specific questionnaires.
KeywordsQuestionnaires Psychometrics Low back pain, prognosis Rehabilitation
The study was performed at the Rehabilitation Centre, Clinique Romande de Réadaptation, Service de réadaptation de l’appareil locomoteur, Sion, Switzerland. We would like to thank our participants for their time and cooperation. We also thank Mrs Virginie Roten who helped in part for carry out the data collection and Dr. Cyrille Burrus who was responsible for the eligibility of the participants.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The study was in part supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant No. SNF 13DPD6_132178/1—E. Opsommer) and the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland//HES-SO (RéSaR 07-10_Sagex_23725—E. Opsommer).
- 3.Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, Bellamy N, Brandenburg N, Carr DB, Cleeland C, Dionne R, Farrar JT, Galer BS, Hewitt DJ, Jadad AR, Katz NP, Kramer LD, Manning DC, McCormick CG, McDermott MP, McGrath P, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Robinson JP, Royal MA, Simon L, Stauffer JW, Stein W, Tollett J, Witter J (2003) Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 106:337–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.ACC (2009) New Zealand acute low back pain guide, incorporation the guide to assessing psychosocial yellow flags in acute low back pain http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_communications/documents/guide/prd_ctrb112930.pdf. Accessed 29.05.2015
- 9.New South Wales WorkCover (2008) Overview Improving outcomes: integrated, active management of workers with soft tissue injury. http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/18765/overview_improving_outcomes_5364.pdf. Accessed 29.05.2015
- 10.New South Wales WorkCover (2009) The management of acute/subacute soft tissue injuries to the low back: evidence update and recommendations for clinical practice. https://www.workcover.com/documents.ashx?id=1882. Accessed 29.05.2015
- 11.Toward Optimized Practice Program (2011) Guideline for the Evidence-Informed Primary Care Management of Low Back Pain. http://www.topalbertadoctors.org/download/572/LBPGUIDELINESNov25.pdf. Accessed 04.06.2015
- 13.Vogler D, Paillex R, Norberg M, de Goumoens P, Cabri J (2008) Cross-cultural validation of the Oswestry disability index in French. Annales de readaptation et de medecine physique: revue scientifique de la Societe francaise de reeducation fonctionnelle de readaptation et de medecine physique 51:379–385. doi: 10.1016/j.annrmp.2008.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Grisart J, Masquelier E (2005) Evaluation de l’indice de kinésiophobie. Echelle Tampa (TSK-CF). http://www.fmp-fbz.fgov.be/prev/DOC/INTERN/tampafr.pdf. Accessed 13.11.2014 2014
- 17.Lépine J (1996) L’échelle HAD (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). In: Guelfi J (ed) L’évaluation clinique standardisée en psychiatrie. Editions Médicales Pierre Fabre, Boulogne, pp 367–374Google Scholar
- 19.Jensen MP, Karoly P (2001) Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults. In: Melzack R, Turk D (eds) Handbook of pain assessment. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 15–34Google Scholar
- 20.Guy W (1976) ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology. US GovernmentPrinting Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- 21.Rehab-scales.org (2007) Situational Pain Scale (SPS): a measure of the mental representation of pain intensity in imaginary painful situations. http://www.rehab-scales.org/situational-pain-scale.html. Accessed 04.06.2015 2015
- 22.Decruynaere C (2007) The measure of pain by self-report: use of Rasch analysis. [PhD thesis dissertation]. Université catholique de LouvainGoogle Scholar
- 23.Cohen J (1998) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
- 24.Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Aspects Treat Care Rehabil 19:539–549. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Wideman TH, Hill JC, Main CJ, Lewis M, Sullivan MJ, Hay EM (2012) Comparing the responsiveness of a brief, multidimensional risk screening tool for back pain to its unidimensional reference standards: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Pain 153:2182–2191. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.06.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Schmidt CO, Kohlmann T, Pfingsten M, Lindena G, Marnitz U, Pfeifer K, Chenot JF (2016) Construct and predictive validity of the German Orebro questionnaire short form for psychosocial risk factor screening of patients with low back pain. Eur Spine J 25:325–332. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-4196-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar