Kratz A L, Kalpakjian C Z, Hanks R A
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, North Campus Research Complex, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Building NCRC B14, Room G218, 325 E. Eisenhower Parkway, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA.
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan, Wayne State University, 261 Mack Blvd, Suite 555, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA.
Qual Life Res. 2017 Mar;26(3):587-600. doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1494-0. Epub 2017 Jan 17.
Intensive repeated measures data collection procedures, such as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and end-of-day (EOD) diaries, are becoming more prominent in pain research. Existing data on the feasibility of such methods is encouraging; however, almost nothing is known about feasibility in clinical populations with significant physical disabilities. Research methodology feasibility is crucial to the inclusion of individuals with physical disability in pain research given the high prevalence and impact of pain in these populations. The aim of this study was to examine study compliance, protocol acceptability, and reactivity of intensive data collection methods in adults with chronic pain and spinal cord injury (SCI).
Secondary analysis of data from a 7-day EMA and EOD diary study in a sample of 131 community dwelling adults with SCI.
Results showed rates of missing data ranged from 18.4 to 22.8% across measures. Participant compliance was related to time of day/presence of audible prompts, mobility aid use, race, and baseline levels of pain and pain interference, with more missing data at wake and bedtimes/no prompts, and for those who used hand-held mobility devices, identified as black/African American, and/or reported higher baseline pain and pain interference. Participants rated the study methodology as generally highly acceptable and expressed willingness to participate in similar studies of much longer duration. There was no evidence of reactivity, defined as temporal shifts in pain or pain interference ratings.
Overall, intensive pain data collection is feasible in persons with SCI with no evidence that the methodology impacts pain intensity or pain interference ratings.
密集重复测量数据收集程序，如生态瞬时评估（EMA）和每日结束时（EOD）日记，在疼痛研究中越来越突出。关于此类方法可行性的现有数据令人鼓舞；然而，对于有严重身体残疾的临床人群的可行性几乎一无所知。鉴于这些人群中疼痛的高患病率和影响，研究方法的可行性对于将身体残疾个体纳入疼痛研究至关重要。本研究的目的是检验密集数据收集方法在患有慢性疼痛和脊髓损伤（SCI）的成年人中的研究依从性、方案可接受性和反应性。
对131名居住在社区的患有SCI的成年人样本进行的为期7天的EMA和EOD日记研究的数据进行二次分析。
结果显示，各项测量的缺失数据率在18.4%至22.8%之间。参与者的依从性与一天中的时间/是否有可听提示、是否使用移动辅助设备、种族以及疼痛和疼痛干扰的基线水平有关，在醒来和就寝时间/无提示时以及使用手持移动设备、被认定为黑人/非裔美国人且/或报告基线疼痛和疼痛干扰较高的参与者中，缺失数据更多。参与者对研究方法的评价总体上高度可接受，并表示愿意参与持续时间长得多的类似研究。没有证据表明存在反应性，即疼痛或疼痛干扰评分的时间变化。
总体而言，密集疼痛数据收集在患有SCI的人群中是可行的，没有证据表明该方法会影响疼痛强度或疼痛干扰评分。
