Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Australia.
Clin Rehabil. 2010 Jul;24(7):648-57. doi: 10.1177/0269215510367975. Epub 2010 Jun 8.
To investigate patients' views about two common outcome measures used for back pain: Numerical Rating Scales for pain and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.
Thirty-six working adults who had previously sought primary care for back pain and who could speak and read English.
Eight focus groups were conducted to explore participants' views about the 11-point Numerical Rating Scales and the 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Each group was led by a facilitator and an interview topic guide was used. Audio recordings of focus groups were transcribed verbatim. Framework analysis was used to chart participants' views and an interpretive analysis performed to explain the findings.
Participants reported that neither the Roland-Morris nor the Numerical Rating Scales captured the complex personal experience of pain or relevant changes in their condition. The time-frame of assessment was identified as particularly problematic and the Roland-Morris did not capture relevant functional domains.
This study provides empirical data that working adults with persistent back pain consider these clinical outcome measures largely inadequate. These measures currently used for back pain may contribute to misleading conclusions about treatment efficacy and patient recovery.
调查患者对两种常用腰痛结局测量方法的看法：疼痛数字评分量表和 Roland-Morris 残疾问卷。
36 名曾在初级保健机构就诊过腰痛的成年在职人员，他们能说英语并能阅读英语。
采用 8 组焦点小组的方法，探讨参与者对 11 点数字评分量表和 24 项 Roland-Morris 残疾问卷的看法。每个小组由一名主持人和一份访谈主题指南引导。焦点小组的音频记录被逐字转录。使用框架分析来描述参与者的观点，并进行解释性分析来解释发现。
参与者报告称，Roland-Morris 问卷和数字评分量表都没有捕捉到疼痛的复杂个人体验或其病情的相关变化。评估的时间框架被认为是特别有问题的，Roland-Morris 问卷没有捕捉到相关的功能领域。
这项研究提供了实证数据，表明患有持续性腰痛的在职成年人认为这些临床结局测量方法在很大程度上是不充分的。目前用于腰痛的这些测量方法可能会导致对治疗效果和患者康复的误导性结论。
