Assessment of chronic pain: multidimensional tools, applicability, and practicality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v40i5.13966Palavras-chave:
Chronic pain, Pain assessment, Functionality, Assessment toolsResumo
Introduction: Chronic pain (CP) negatively impacts patients’ physical and psychological status. Thus, it has the potential to affect every aspect of everyday life. In Portugal, CP is a major public health problem that affects roughly 36.7% of adults. Nevertheless, assessment of this condition is still far from ideal. A Portuguese study showed that most of last year’s medical students and first-year residents did not routinely assess pain. Additionally, the best-known pain assessment tools are the ones that focus only on pain intensity, thus disregarding the multidimensional nature of pain.
Objectives: This study aims to review pain assessment tools that consider the nature of pain and its impact on patients' functionality. The ultimate goal is to increase the knowledge and dissemination of such tools.
Methods: Focus groups were conducted with a panel of 29 Portuguese physicians specialized in family medicine and orthopaedics. Several pain assessment tools were debated regarding applicability, practicality, and relevance. After group discussion, five pain assessment tools were considered particularly relevant.
Results: The characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of five pain assessment tools (ACT-UP, CAPA, Barthel index, BPI, and EQ-5D), and the need for their applicability in the family medicine clinical practice are summarized and highlighted. Functional assessment of CP patients is a key step to deciding the most adequate treatment regimen since the individual nature of patients will cause them to be differently affected by distinct limitations, even if the intensity of pain is similar.
Conclusion: The implementation use of these tools in clinical practice will be crucial for the improvement of CP management.
Downloads
Referências
1. International Association for the Study of Pain. IASP announces revised definition of pain [homepage]. Washington: IASP; 2020 Jul 16. Available from: https://www.iasp-pain.org/PublicationsNews/NewsDetail.aspx?ItemNumber=10475&navItemNumber=643
2. Mills SE, Nicolson KP, Smith BH. Chronic pain: a review of its epidemiology and associated factors in population-based studies. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123(2):e273-83.
3. Treede RD, Rief W, Barke A, Aziz Q, Bennett MI, Benoliel R, et al. Chronic pain as a symptom or a disease: the IASP Classification of Chronic Pain for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Pain. 2019;160(1):19-27.
4. Azevedo LF, Costa-Pereira A, Mendonça L, Dias CC, Castro-Lopes JM. Epidemiology of chronic pain: a population-based nationwide study on its prevalence, characteristics and associated disability in Portugal. J Pain. 2012;13(8):773-83.
5. Niederberger E. Novel insights into molecular mechanisms of chronic pain. Cells. 2020;9(10):2220.
6. Azevedo LF, Costa-Pereira A, Mendonça L, Dias CC, Castro-Lopes JM. The economic impact of chronic pain: a nationwide population-based cost-of-illness study in Portugal. Eur J Health Econ. 2016;17(1):87-98.
7. Edwards RR, Dworkin RH, Sullivan MD, Turk DC, Wasan AD. The role of psychosocial processes in the development and maintenance of chronic pain. J Pain. 2016;17(9 Suppl):T70-92.
8. Azevedo LF, Costa-Pereira A, Mendonça L, Dias CC, Castro-Lopes JM. A population-based study on chronic pain and the use of opioids in Portugal. Pain. 2013;154(12):2844-52.
9. Cristóvão I, Reis-Pina P. Chronic pain education in Portugal: perspectives from medical students and interns. Acta Med Port. 2019;32(5):338-47.
10. Amorim AC. Letter to the Editor regarding the article: "Chronic pain education in Portugal: perspectives from medical students and interns". Acta Med Port. 2019;32(7-8):560.
11. Prazeres F. Chronic pain and multimorbidity: comment on "Chronic pain education in Portugal: perspectives from medical students and interns". Acta Med Port. 2019;32(9):622.
12. Topham D, Drew D. Quality improvement project: replacing the numeric rating scale with a Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment (CAPA) tool. Pain Manag Nurs. 2017;18(6):363-71.
13. Solomon A. Pain assessment: can a number meaningfully describe the pain experience? Indian J Continuing Nurs Educ. 2016;17(2):12-8.
14. Antunes F, Pereira RM, Afonso V, Tinoco R. Prevalence and characteristics of chronic pain among patients in Portuguese primary care units. Pain Ther. 2021;10(2):1427-37.
15. Kitzinger J. Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995;311(7000):299-302.
16. Bouhassira D, Attal N, Alchaar H, Boureau F, Brochet B, Bruxelle J, et al. Comparison of pain syndromes associated with nervous or somatic lesions and development of a new neuropathic pain diagnostic questionnaire (DN4). Pain. 2005;114(1-2):29-36.
17. Jones RC 3rd, Backonja MM. Review of neuropathic pain screening and assessment tools. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2013;17(9):363.
18. Aho T, Mustonen L, Kalso E, Harno H. Douleur neuropathique 4 (DN4) stratifies possible and definite neuropathic pain after surgical peripheral nerve lesion. Eur J Pain. 2020;24(2):413-22.
19. Azevedo LF, Pereira AC, Dias C, Agualusa L, Lemos L, Romão J, et al. Tradução, adaptação cultural e estudo multicêntrico de validação de instrumentos para rastreio e avaliação do impacto da dor crónica. Dor. 2007;15(4):6-56.
20. Timmerman H, Steegers MA, Huygen FJ, Goeman JJ, van Dasselaar NT, Schenkels MJ, et al. Investigating the validity of the DN4 in a consecutive population of patients with chronic pain. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):e0187961.
21. Bendinger T, Plunkett N. Measurement in pain medicine. BJA Educ. 2016;16(9):310-5.
22. Dansie EJ, Turk DC. Assessment of patients with chronic pain. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(1):19-25.
23. Turk DC, Audette J, Levy RM, Mackey SC, Stanos S. Assessment and treatment of psychosocial comorbidities in patients with neuropathic pain. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85(3 Suppl):S42-50.
24. Finan PH, Garland EL. The role of positive affect in pain and its treatment. Clin J Pain. 2015;31(2):177-87.
25. Donaldson G, Chapman CR. Pain management is more than just a number. Utah: Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah Health Salt Lake City; 2013.
26. Garg A, Pathak H, Churyukanov MV, Uppin RB, Slobodin TM. Low back pain: critical assessment of various scales. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(3):503-18.
27. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61-5.
28. Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10(2):61-3.
29. Oliveira A, Nossa P, Mota-Pinto A. Assessing functional capacity and factors determining functional decline in the elderly: a cross-sectional study. Acta Med Port. 2019;32(10):654-60.
30. Bernaola-Sagardui I. Validation of the Barthel Index in the Spanish population. Enferm Clin. 2018;28(3):210-1.
31. Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(8):703-9.
32. Granger CV. Assessment of functional status: a model for multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand. 1981;64(S87):40-7.
33. Katz PP, Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals Outcomes Measures Task Force PP. Measures of adult general functional status: the Barthel Index, Katz Index of Activities of Daily Living, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), MACTAR Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire, and Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ). Arthritis Care Res. 2003;49(Suppl 5):S15-27.
34. McGinnis GE, Seward ML, DeJong G, Osberg JS. Program evaluation of physical medicine and rehabilitation departments using self-report Barthel. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986;67(2):123-5.
35. Araújo F, Pais-Ribeiro JL, Oliveira A, Pinto C. Validação do Índice de Barthel numa amostra de idosos não institucionalizados [Validation of the Barthel Index in a sample of non-institutionalized elderly]. Rev Port Saúde Pública. 2007;25(2):59-66. Portuguese
36. Hartigan I. A comparative review of the Katz ADL and the Barthel Index in assessing the activities of daily living of older people. Int J Older People Nurs. 2007;2(3):204-12.
37. Prodinger B, O'Connor RJ, Stucki G, Tennant A. Establishing score equivalence of the Functional Independence Measure motor scale and the Barthel Index, utilising the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health and Rasch measurement theory. J Rehabil Med. 2017;49(5):416-22.
38. Liu F, Tsang RC, Zhou J, Zhou M, Zha F, Long J, et al. Relationship of Barthel Index and its short form with the Modified Rankin Scale in acute stroke patients. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020;29(9):105033.
39. Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994;23(2):129-38.
40. Keller S, Bann CM, Dodd SL, Schein J, Mendoza TR, Cleeland CS. Validity of the Brief Pain Inventory for use in documenting the outcomes of patients with noncancer pain. Clin J Pain. 2004;20(5):309-18.
41. Jelsness-Jørgensen LP, Moum B, Grimstad T, Jahnsen J, Opheim R, Berset IP, et al. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Brief Pain Inventory in inflammatory bowel disease. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;2016:5624261.
42. Zelman DC, Gore M, Dukes E, Tai KS, Brandenburg N. Validation of a modified version of the Brief Pain Inventory for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005;29(4):401-10.
43. Atkinson TM, Rosenfeld BD, Sit L, Mendoza TR, Fruscione M, Lavene D, et al. Using confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate construct validity of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011;41(3):558-65.
44. Tan G, Jensen MP, Thornby JI, Shanti BF. Validation of the Brief Pain Inventory for chronic nonmalignant pain. J Pain. 2004;5(2):133-7.
45. Ferreira-Valente MA, Pais-Ribeiro JL, Jensen MP. Further validation of a Portuguese version of the Brief Pain Inventory Interference Scale. Clin Salud. 2012;23(1):89-96.
46. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Katz NP, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113(1-2):9-19.
47. Cleeland CS. The Brief Pain Inventory: user guide [Internet]. Houston: University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; 2009. Available from: https://www.spoergeskemaer.dk/wp-content/uploads/BPI_UserGuide.pdf
48. Stanhope J. Brief Pain Inventory review. Occup Med. 2016;66(6):496-7.
49. Poquet N, Lin C. The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). J Physiother. 2016;62(1):52.
50. EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199-208.
51. Ferreira PL, Ferreira LN, Pereira LN. Contributos para a validação da versão Portuguesa do EQ-5D [Contribution for the validation of the Portuguese version of EQ-5D]. Acta Med Port. 2013;26(6):664-75. Portuguese
52. Riis PT, Vinding GR, Ring HC, Jemec GB. Disutility in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa: a cross-sectional study using EuroQoL-5D. Acta Derm Venereol. 2016;96(2):222-6.
53. Schweikert B, Hahmann H, Leidl R. Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in cardiac rehabilitation. Heart. 2006;92(1):62-7.
54. Torres-Sánchez I, Valenza MC, Cebriá I Iranzo MD, López-López L, Moreno-Ramírez MP, Ortíz-Rubio A. Effects of different physical therapy programs on perceived health status in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: a randomized clinical trial. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(17):2025-31.
55. Obradovic M, Lal A, Liedgens H. Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:110.
56. Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Pereira LN, Oppe M. The valuation of the EQ-5D in Portugal. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):413-23.
57. Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Pereira LN, Oppe M. EQ-5D Portuguese population norms. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):425-30.
58. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337-43.
59. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727-36.
60. Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Ribeiro FP, Pereira LN. Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in young Portuguese adults. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:89.
61. Ferreira PL, Antunes P, Ferreira LN, Pereira LN, Ramos-Goñi JM. A hybrid modelling approach for eliciting health state preferences: the Portuguese EQ-5D-5L value set. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(12):3163-75.
62. Gebke KB, McCarberg B, Shaw E, Turk DC, Wright WL, Semel D. A practical guide to recognize, assess, treat and evaluate (RATE) primary care patients with chronic pain. Postgrad Med. 2023;135(3):244-53.
63. Williams AC, Davies HT, Chadury Y. Simple pain rating scales hide complex idiosyncratic meanings. Pain. 2000;85(3):457-63.
64. Dewing J. A critique of the Barthel Index. Br J Nurs. 1992;1(7):325-9.
65. Herdman M, Badia X, Berra S. El EuroQol-5D: una alternativa sencilla para la medición de la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud en atención primaria [EuroQol-5D: a simple alternative for measuring health-related quality of life in primary care]. Aten Primaria. 2001;28(6):425-30. Spanish
66. Briggs M, Closs JS. A descriptive study of the use of visual analogue scales and verbal rating scales for the assessment of postoperative pain in orthopedic patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1999;18(6):438-46.
67. Carnago L, O'Regan A, Hughes JM. Diagnosing and treating chronic pain: are we doing this right? J Prim Care Community Health. 2021;12:21501327211008055.
68. Andersson HI, Ejlertsson G, Leden I, Rosenberg C. Chronic pain in a geographically defined general population: studies of differences in age, gender, social class, and pain localization. Clin J Pain. 1993;9(3):174-82.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Secção
Licença
Direitos de Autor (c) 2024 Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar
Este trabalho encontra-se publicado com a Licença Internacional Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0.
Os autores concedem à RPMGF o direito exclusivo de publicar e distribuir em suporte físico, electrónico, por meio de radiodifusão ou em outros suportes que venham a existir o conteúdo do manuscrito identificado nesta declaração. Concedem ainda à RPMGF o direito a utilizar e explorar o presente manuscrito, nomeadamente para ceder, vender ou licenciar o seu conteúdo. Esta autorização é permanente e vigora a partir do momento em que o manuscrito é submetido, tem a duração máxima permitida pela legislação portuguesa ou internacional aplicável e é de âmbito mundial. Os autores declaram ainda que esta cedência é feita a título gratuito. Caso a RPMGF comunique aos autores que decidiu não publicar o seu manuscrito, a cedência exclusiva de direitos cessa de imediato.
Os autores autorizam a RPMGF (ou uma entidade por esta designada) a actuar em seu nome quando esta considerar que existe violação dos direitos de autor.
