Nahin Richard L
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
J Pain Res. 2016 Mar 1;9:105-13. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S99548. eCollection 2016.
Based on qualitative and mixed-method approaches, Miller and Loeb have proposed a coding system that combines questions on pain persistence and bothersomeness to create discrete categories of increasing pain severity for use in large population-based surveys. In the current analyses, using data from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey, we quantitatively assess the pain category definitions proposed by Miller and Loeb and compare this original definition to ten alternative definitions.
Using multivariate analysis of variance, each definition was related simultaneously to four dependent measures - the Kessler 6 score for measuring psychological distress, the number of health-related bed-disability days, the number of visits to a health professional, and the number of emergency room visits. Following the protocol of Serlin et al, the definition yielding the largest F score was considered the optimal definition.
The Miller and Loeb definition produced the largest F value (185.87), followed consecutively by several alternative definitions #5 (184.17), #10 (180.95), and #9 (179.5). A nearly identical ordering was found when looking at the mean F value generated from 100 random samples. We also examined the frequencies with which each alternative definition achieved the optimal F value over the 100 random samples. Only two definitions had achieved the optimal F value >5% of the time: the Miller and Loeb definition was optimal 46% of the time, while alternative definition #5 was optimal 41% of the time. Similar results were seen in subpopulations with back pain and joint pain.
Additional support was provided for the Miller and Loeb coding of pain persistence and bothersomeness to produce discrete categories of increasing pain severity. This two-question coding scheme may prove to be a viable option for assessing pain severity in clinical settings where clinician time and patient burden are limiting factors.
基于定性和混合方法,米勒和勒布提出了一种编码系统,该系统结合了关于疼痛持续时间和困扰程度的问题,以创建疼痛严重程度递增的离散类别,用于大规模的基于人群的调查。在当前的分析中,我们使用2012年全国健康访谈调查的数据,对米勒和勒布提出的疼痛类别定义进行了定量评估,并将这个原始定义与十个替代定义进行了比较。
使用多变量方差分析,每个定义同时与四个因变量相关——用于测量心理困扰的凯斯勒6项量表得分、与健康相关的卧床残疾天数、看医生的次数以及急诊室就诊次数。按照塞尔林等人的方案,产生最大F值的定义被视为最佳定义。
米勒和勒布的定义产生了最大的F值(185.87),紧随其后的是几个替代定义,分别是定义#5(184.17)、#10(180.95)和#9(179.5)。在查看从100个随机样本中生成的平均F值时,发现了几乎相同的排序。我们还检查了每个替代定义在100个随机样本中达到最佳F值的频率。只有两个定义在超过5%的时间里达到了最佳F值:米勒和勒布的定义在46%的时间里是最佳的,而替代定义#5在41%的时间里是最佳的。在背痛和关节痛的亚人群中也观察到了类似的结果。
为米勒和勒布对疼痛持续时间和困扰程度的编码以产生疼痛严重程度递增的离散类别提供了更多支持。在临床环境中,当临床医生时间和患者负担是限制因素时,这种两问题编码方案可能被证明是评估疼痛严重程度的可行选择。