Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Core patient-reported outcome domains for routine clinical care in chronic pain management: patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspective

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To identify a core patient-reported outcome (PRO) domain set to be used in routine clinical care in settings offering specialized and supra-specialized multidisciplinary care to individuals with chronic pain (CP).

Methods

Two online cross-sectional surveys were administered: one with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and one with individuals with CP. Both surveys included domains of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) framework. The patients’ survey also included the Patient Generated Index (PGI). Areas affected by CP identified in the PGI were mapped to The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).

Results

According to HCPs, the five most relevant HRQoL domains to be assessed in routine clinical care were pain interference, pain intensity, physical function, anxiety and depression. The five areas that were the most valued by individuals with CP were recreation and leisure; global mental function; work and employment; household tasks and walking and moving. In total, these represented 74% of all nominated areas. When triangulating both frameworks (ICF/PROMIS) and perspectives (HCPs/patients), 10 core PRO domains were identified: pain interference, pain intensity, physical function, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, ability to participate in social roles and activities, fatigue, sleep-related impairments and self-efficacy.

Conclusions

This study identified 10 core PRO domains covering the physical, psychological and social consequences of CP on an individual’s life from the perspective of individuals with CP and HCPs. The results can help identify appropriate PRO measures to assess the outcomes of multidisciplinary interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ho, A., & Nair, S. (2018). Chapter nine—Global chronic pain: Public and population health responses. In D. Z. Buchman & K. D. Davis (Eds.), Developments in neuroethics and bioethics (pp. 171–189). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. McCarberg, B. H., et al. (2008). The impact of pain on quality of life and the unmet needs of pain management: Results from pain sufferers and physicians participating in an Internet survey. American Journal of Therapeutics,15(4), 312–320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dobkin, P. L., & Boothroyd, L. J. (2008). Organizing health services for patients with chronic pain: When there is a will there is a way. Pain Medication,9(7), 881–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Institute of Medicine. (2011). Relieving pain in America: A blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ospina, M., & Harstall, C. (2003). Multidisciplinary pain programs for chronic pain: Evidence from systematic reviews. In HTA 30: Series a health technology assessment (p. 48). Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research.

  6. Stanos, S., et al. (2016). Rethinking chronic pain in a primary care setting. Postgraduate Medicine,128(5), 502–515.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Noonan, V. K., et al. (2017). Montreal Accord on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) use series e Paper 3: Patient-reported outcomes can facilitate shared decision-making and guide self-management. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,89, 125–135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Calvert, M., et al. (2019). Maximising the impact of patient reported outcome assessment for patients and society. BMJ,364(k5267), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chapman, J. R., et al. (2011). Evaluating common outcomes for measuring treatment success for chronic low back pain. Spine,36(21 Suppl), S54–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chiarotto, A., Terwee, C. B., & Ostelo, R. W. (2016). Choosing the right outcome measurement instruments for patients with low back pain. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology,30(6), 1003–1020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dansie, E. J., & Turk, D. C. (2013). Assessment of patients with chronic pain. British Journal of Anaesthesia,111(1), 19e25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Holmes, M. M., et al. (2017). The impact of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice for pain: A systematic review. Quality of Life Research,26, 245–257.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Greenhalgh, J. (2009). The applications of PROs in clinical practice: What are they, do they work, and why? Quality of Life Research,18(1), 115–123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Santana, M. J., & Feeny, D. (2014). Framework to assess the effects of using patient-reported outcome measures in chronic care management. Quality of Life Research,23(5), 1505–1513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dworkin, R. H., et al. (2005). Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain,113(1–2), 9–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaiser, U., et al. (2018). Developing a core outcome domain set to assessing effectiveness of interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy: The VAPAIN consensus statement on core outcome domains. Pain,159(4), 673–683.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Turk, D. C., et al. (2008). Identifying important outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: An IMMPACT survey of people with pain. Pain,137(2), 276–285.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Deyo, R. A., et al. (1998). Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine,23(18), 2003–2013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tardif, H., et al. (2017). Establishment of the Australasian electronic persistent pain outcomes collaboration. Pain Medicine,18(6), 1007–1018.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zidarov, D., Visca, R., & Ahmed, S. (2019). Type of clinical outcomes used by healthcare professionals to evaluate health-related quality of life domains to inform clinical decision making for chronic pain management. Quality of Life Research,28, 2761–2771.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cella, D., et al. (2007). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care,45(5 Suppl 1), S3–s11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Botella, M., et al. (2007). French adaptation of the Patient Generated Index: Metric characteristics and practical limitations. Psycho-Oncologie,2, 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Callaghan, B. G., & Condie, M. E. (2003). A post-discharge quality of life outcome measure for lower limb amputees: Test-retest reliability and construct validity. Clinical Rehabilitation,17, 858–864.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tavernier, S. S., et al. (2011). Validity of the patient generated index as a quality-of-life measure in radiation oncology. Oncology Nursing Forum,38(3), 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ternent, L., et al. (2009). Measuring outcomes of importance to women with stress urinary incontinence. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics,116(7), 719–725.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ruta, D. A., et al. (1994). A new approach to the measurement of qualityof life. The Patient-Generated Index. Medical Care,32(11), 1109–1126.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ruta, D. A., Garratt, A. M., & Russell, I. T. (1999). Patient centred assessment of quality of life for patients with four common conditions. Quality in Health Care,8, 22–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research,15(9), 1277–1288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tucker, C. A., et al. (2014). Concept analysis of the patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) and the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Quality of Life Research,23, 1677–1686.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tucker, C. A., et al. (2014). Mapping the content of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) using the international classification of functioning, health and disability. Quality of Life Research,23, 2431–2438.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Boers, M., et al. (2014). Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0*. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,67, 745e–753e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Terwee, C. B., et al. (2018). COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patientreported outcome measures: A Delphi study. Quality of Life Research,27, 1159–1170.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Idzerda, L., et al. (2014). Can we decide which outcomes should be measured in every clinical trial? A scoping review of the existing conceptual frameworks and processes to develop core outcome sets. Journal of Rheumatology,41, 986–993.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Schmitt, J., et al. (2015). The Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) roadmap: A methodological framework to develop core sets of outcome measurements in dermatology. The Journal of Investigative Dermatology,135(1), 24–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ahmed, S., et al. (2017). Montreal Accord on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) use series e Paper 8: Patient-reported outcomes in electronic health records can inform clinical and policy decisions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,89, 160–167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Boyce, M. B., Browne, J. P., & Greenhalgh, J. (2014). The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: A systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Quality & Safety,23, 508–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Chiarotto, A., et al. (2015). Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain. European Spine Journal,24(6), 1127–1142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Turk, C. D., et al. (2003). Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain,106(3), 337–345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Jackson, T., et al. (2014). Self-efficacy and chronic pain outcomes: A meta-analytic review. The Journal of Pain,15(8), 800–814.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kaiser, U., et al. (2016). Core outcome sets and multidimensional assessment tools for harmonizing outcome measure in chronic pain and back pain. Healthcare,4(3), 63.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Van Der Wees, P. J., et al. (2014). Integrating the use of patient-reported outcomes for both clinical practice and performance measurement: Views of experts from 3 countries. Milbank Quarterly,92(4), 754–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Roland, M. O., & Morris, R. W. (1983). A study of the natural history of back pain. Part 1: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low back pain. Spine,8, 141–144.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Roland, M., & Fairbank, J. (2000). The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine,25, 3115–3124.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kopec, J. A., et al. (1996). The Quebec back pain disability scale: Conceptualization and development. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,49, 151–161.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Duncan, E. A. S., & Murray, J. (2012). The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research,12(1), 96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Baumhauer, J. F. (2017). Patient-reported outcomes—Are they living up to their potential? New England Journal of Medicine,377(1), 6–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Broderick, J. E., et al. (2013). Validity and reliability of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care & Research,65(10), 1625–1633.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Deyo, R. A., et al. (2016). Performance of a patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) short form in older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain Medicine,17(2), 314–324.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hayes, R. D., et al. (2015). Responsiveness and minimally important difference for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 20-item physical functioning short form in a prospective observational study of rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases,74, 104–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kroenke, K., et al. (2014). Operating characteristics of PROMIS four item depression and anxiety scales in primary care patients with chronic pain. Pain Medication,15, 1892–1901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Oude Voshaar, M. A., et al. (2015). Validity and measurement precision of the PROMIS physical function item bank and a content validity–driven 20-item short form in rheumatoid arthritis compared with traditional measures. Rheumatology,54(12), 2221–2229.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Deckert, S., et al. (2016). A systematic review of the outcomes reported in multimodal pain therapy for chronic pain. European Journal of Pain,20(1), 51–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Williamson, P. R., et al. (2017). The COMET handbook: version 1.0. Trials,18, 280.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a scholarship from Fonds de recherche en santé du Québec. We gratefully acknowledge the involvement of all study participants. We also acknowledge the support of the Lindsay RH in support of the Initiative for the Development of New Technologies and Innovative Practices in Rehabilitation—INSPIRE project

Funding

There is no funding associated with project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, School of Rehabilitation, Université de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Diana Zidarov

  2. Institut universitaire sur la réadaptation en déficience physique de Montréal, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l’Île-de-Montréal, Montreal, Canada

    Diana Zidarov

  3. Centre de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Réadaptation du Montréal Métropolitain, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Diana Zidarov & Sara Ahmed

  4. Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada

    Alexia Zidarova-Carrié

  5. McGill Integrated University Health Network (RUIS) Centre of Expertise in Chronic Pain, Montreal, Canada

    Regina Visca & Sara Ahmed

  6. Clinique d’adaptation à la douleur chronique, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l’Île-de-Montréal, Centre de réadaptation Lucie-Bruneau, Montreal, Canada

    J. Marc Miller

  7. Alan Edwards Pain Management Unit, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Krista Brecht

  8. Direction du soutien de l’autonomie des personnes âgées, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l’Ouest-de-l’île-de-Montréal, Montreal, Canada

    Natacha Viens

  9. Faculty of Medicine, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, 3654 Prom. Sir William Osler, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Sara Ahmed

Authors
  1. Diana Zidarov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexia Zidarova-Carrié
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Regina Visca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Marc Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Krista Brecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Natacha Viens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sara Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Ahmed.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zidarov, D., Zidarova-Carrié, A., Visca, R. et al. Core patient-reported outcome domains for routine clinical care in chronic pain management: patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspective. Qual Life Res 29, 2007–2020 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02459-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02459-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation