Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSherman, Karen
dc.contributor.authorEaves, Emery
dc.contributor.authorRitenbaugh, Cheryl
dc.contributor.authorHsu, Clarissa
dc.contributor.authorCherkin, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorTurner, Judith
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-20T09:05:13Z
dc.date.available2016-05-20T09:05:13Z
dc.date.issued2014en
dc.identifier.citationSherman et al. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2014, 14:39 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/14/39en
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/1472-6882-14-39en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/610365
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND:No consistent relationship exists between pre-treatment expectations and therapeutic benefit from various complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies in clinical trials. However, many different expectancy measures have been used in those studies, with no validated questionnaires clearly focused on CAM and pain. We undertook cognitive interviews as part of a process to develop and validate such a questionnaire.METHODS:We reviewed questions about expectations of benefits of acupuncture, chiropractic, massage, or yoga for pain. Components of the questions - verbs, nouns, response options, terms and phrases describing back pain - were identified. Using seven different cognitive interview scripts, we conducted 39 interviews to evaluate how individuals with chronic low back pain understood these individual components in the context of expectancy questions for a therapy they had not yet received. Chosen items were those with the greatest agreement and least confusion among participants, and were closest to the meanings intended by the investigators.RESULTS:The questionnaire drafted for psychometric evaluation had 18 items covering various domains of expectancy. "Back pain" was the most consistently interpreted descriptor for this condition. The most understandable response options were 0-10 scales, a structure used throughout the questionnaire, with 0 always indicating no change, and 10 anchored with an absolute descriptor such as "complete relief". The use of words to describe midpoints was found to be confusing. The word "expect" held different and shifting meanings for participants. Thus paired items comparing "hope" and "realistically expect" were chosen to evaluate 5 different aspects of treatment expectations (back pain
dc.description.abstractback dysfunction and global effects
dc.description.abstractimpact of back pain on specific areas of life
dc.description.abstractsleep, mood, and energy
dc.description.abstractcoping). "Impact of back pain" on various areas of life was found to be a consistently meaningful concept, and more global than "interference".CONCLUSIONS:Cognitive interviews identified wordings with considerable agreement among both participants and investigators. Some items widely used in clinical studies had different meanings to participants than investigators, or were confusing to participants. The final 18-item questionnaire is undergoing psychometric evaluation with goals of streamlining as well as identifying best items for use when questionnaire length is constrained.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/14/39en
dc.rights© 2014 Sherman et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0).en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
dc.subjectCognitive interviewsen
dc.subjectQuestionnairesen
dc.subjectExpectationsen
dc.subjectLow back painen
dc.subjectAcupunctureen
dc.subjectChiropracticen
dc.subjectMassage therapyen
dc.subjectYogaen
dc.titleCognitive interviews guide design of a new CAM patient expectations questionnaireen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.eissn1472-6882en
dc.contributor.departmentGroup Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle WA 98101, USAen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Arizona, 1450 N Cherry Avenue, Tucson AZ 85719, USAen
dc.contributor.departmentCenter for Community Health and Evaluation, Group Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle WA 98101, USAen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Box 356560, Seattle WA 98195-6560, USAen
dc.identifier.journalBMC Complementary and Alternative Medicineen
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item is part of the UA Faculty Publications collection. For more information this item or other items in the UA Campus Repository, contact the University of Arizona Libraries at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.en
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen
refterms.dateFOA2018-09-11T11:03:20Z
html.description.abstractBACKGROUND:No consistent relationship exists between pre-treatment expectations and therapeutic benefit from various complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies in clinical trials. However, many different expectancy measures have been used in those studies, with no validated questionnaires clearly focused on CAM and pain. We undertook cognitive interviews as part of a process to develop and validate such a questionnaire.METHODS:We reviewed questions about expectations of benefits of acupuncture, chiropractic, massage, or yoga for pain. Components of the questions - verbs, nouns, response options, terms and phrases describing back pain - were identified. Using seven different cognitive interview scripts, we conducted 39 interviews to evaluate how individuals with chronic low back pain understood these individual components in the context of expectancy questions for a therapy they had not yet received. Chosen items were those with the greatest agreement and least confusion among participants, and were closest to the meanings intended by the investigators.RESULTS:The questionnaire drafted for psychometric evaluation had 18 items covering various domains of expectancy. "Back pain" was the most consistently interpreted descriptor for this condition. The most understandable response options were 0-10 scales, a structure used throughout the questionnaire, with 0 always indicating no change, and 10 anchored with an absolute descriptor such as "complete relief". The use of words to describe midpoints was found to be confusing. The word "expect" held different and shifting meanings for participants. Thus paired items comparing "hope" and "realistically expect" were chosen to evaluate 5 different aspects of treatment expectations (back pain
html.description.abstractback dysfunction and global effects
html.description.abstractimpact of back pain on specific areas of life
html.description.abstractsleep, mood, and energy
html.description.abstractcoping). "Impact of back pain" on various areas of life was found to be a consistently meaningful concept, and more global than "interference".CONCLUSIONS:Cognitive interviews identified wordings with considerable agreement among both participants and investigators. Some items widely used in clinical studies had different meanings to participants than investigators, or were confusing to participants. The final 18-item questionnaire is undergoing psychometric evaluation with goals of streamlining as well as identifying best items for use when questionnaire length is constrained.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
1472-6882-14-39.pdf
Size:
257.7Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2014 Sherman et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0).
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2014 Sherman et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0).