a review and critique of assessment instruments for patients with persistent pain
Clicks: 170
ID: 199349
2009
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Star Article
30.0
/100
170 views
21 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
StarRanked #124 of 145 articles by views in waste management (new york, ny)
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 145 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Karen Grimmer-Somers1, Nic Vipond2, Saravana Kumar1, Gillian Hall21Centre for Allied Health Evidence, University of South Australia, Australia; 2Accident Compensation Corporation, Wellington, New Zealand Background: Early identification of individuals at risk of developing persistent pain is important to decrease unnecessary treatment costs and disability. However there is scant comprehensive information readily available to assist clinicians to choose appropriate assessment instruments with sound psychometric and clinical properties.Objective: A national insurer commissioned the development of a compendium of assessment instruments to identify adults with, or at-risk of developing, persistent pain. This paper reports on the instrument identification and review process.Methods: A comprehensive systematic literature review was undertaken of assessment instruments for persistent pain of noncancer origin, and their developmental literature. Only assessment instruments which were developed for patients with pain, or tested on them, were included. A purpose-built ‘Ready Reckoner’ scored psychometric properties and clinical utility.Results: One hundred sixteen potentially useful instruments were identified, measuring severity, psychological, functional and/or quality of life constructs of persistent pain. Forty-five instruments were short-listed, with convincing psychometric properties and clinical utility. There were no standard tests for psychometric properties, and considerable overlap of instrument purpose, item construct, wording, and scoring.Conclusion: No one assessment instrument captured all the constructs of persistent pain. While the compendium focuses clinicians’ choices, multiple instruments are required for comprehensive assessment of adults with persistent pain.Keywords: persistent pain, assessment, psychometric properties, evidence-base, clinical utility
| Reference Key |
grimmer-somers2009journala
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Karen Grimmer-Somers;Nic Vipond;Saravana Kumar;Gillian Hall |
| Journal | waste management (new york, ny) |
| Year | 2009 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.