Abstract
Our objective was to assess the sensitivity to change over time of three methods of assessing pain. We conducted a comparison of the sensitivity to change of three pain assessment measures in a double blind, double dummy parallel group study evaluating the efficacy of one of two doses of oral bromfenac and one of two doses of sublingual buprenorphine. Our subject pool consisted of 75 patients following general surgical and orthopaedic procedures. Pain intensity was measured by the affective, sensory and evaluative dimensions of the McGill Pain Questionnaire together with total score and word score, a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale and by a four word scale. Effect size calculations indicated considerable variation in the sensitivity of the instruments to change. However, despite variation in the size of effect indicated by different measures, there was consistent agreement as to the most effective treatment regimen. This study suggests that simple measures of pain are sensitive to change and are worthwhile indicators of the impact of an intervention upon acute pain, although some care is needed in interpreting results from such instruments. More complex forms of assessment, such as the calculation of the MPQ sub-scales may not add anything to such data.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ellwood PM. The Shattock Lecture: Outcomes management: a technology of patient experience.New England J Med 1988;318: 1549–1556.
Jenkinson C, Wright L, Coulter A.Quality of life measurement in health care. A review of measures and poulation norms for the UK SF-36. Oxford: Health Services Research Unit, 1993.
Melzack R, Wall P.The Challenge of Pain. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1988.
Safer MA, Tharps QJ, Jackson TC, Leventhal H. Determinants of three stages of delay in seeking care at a medical care clinic.Med Care 1979;17: 11–29.
Melzack R.The puzzle of pain. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
Melzack R. The McGill pain questionnaire: Major properties and scoring methods.Pain 1975;1: 277–299.
Melzack R, Torgerson WS. On the language of pain.Anethesiology 1971;34: 50–59.
McQuay H. Assessment of pain and effectiveness of treatment. In: Hopkins A, Costain D eds.Measuring the outcomes of medical care. London: Royal College of Physicians, 1990.
Wolf FM.Meta-analysis: quantitative methods for research synthesis. Beverley Hills: Sage, 1986.
Kazis L, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status.Med Care 1989;27: S179-S189.
Fitzpatrick R, Ziebland S, Jenkinson C, et al. The importance of sensitivity to change as a criterion for selecting health status measures.Quality in Health Care 1992;1: 89–93.
Jenkinson C, Lawrence K, McWhinnie D, Gordon J. Sensitivity to change of health status measures in a randomized controlled trial: comparison of the COOP charts and the SF-36.Qual Life Res 1995;4: 47–52.
Lydick E, Epstein RS. Interpretation of quality of life data.Qual Life Res 1993;2: 221–226.
Ziebland S. Measuring changes in health status. In: Jenkinson C, ed.Measuring Health and Medical Outcomes. London: UCL Press, 1994.
Cohen J.Statistical Power for the Behavioural Sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1977.
Ziebland S, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C, et al. Comparison of two approaches to measuring change in rheumatoid arthritis: the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and modified HAQ.Ann Rheumatic Dis 1992;52: 1202–1205.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jenkinson, C., Carroll, D., Egerton, M. et al. Comparison of the sensitivity to change of long and short form pain measures. Qual Life Res 4, 353–357 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01593888
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01593888