Responsiveness and Minimal Important Change of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale in People with Chronic Low Back Pain Undergoing Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation

Overview

Journal Eur J Phys Rehabil Med

Specialty Rehabilitation Medicine

Date 2021 May 27

PMID 34042409

Citations 6

Authors

Marco Monticone

Igor Portoghese

Barbara Rocca

Andrea Giordano

Marcello Campagna

Franco Franchignoni

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), a widely used tool to assess catastrophizing related to spinal disorders, shows valid psychometric properties in general but the minimal important change (MIC) is still not determined.

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess responsiveness and MIC of the PCS in individuals with chronic low back pain (LBP) undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation.

Design: Prospective observational study.

Setting: The setting was outpatient rehabilitation hospital.

Population: Two hundred and five patients with chronic LBP.

Methods: Before and after an 8-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program, 205 patients completed the Italian version of the PCS (PCS-I). We calculated the PCS-I responsiveness by distribution-based methods (effect size [ES], standardized response mean [SRM], and minimum detectable change [MDC]) and anchor-based methods [receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves]. After the program, participants completed a 7-point global perceived effect scale (GPE), based on which they were classified as "improved" vs. "stable." ROC curves computed the best cut-off level (taken as the MIC) between the two groups. ROC analysis was also performed on subgroups according to patients' baseline PCS scores.

Results: ES, SRM and MDC were 0.71, 0.67 and 7.73, respectively. ROC analysis yielded an MIC of 8 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6-10; area under the curve [AUC]: 0.88). ROC analysis of the PCS subgroups confirmed an MIC of 8 points (95%CI: 6-10) for no/low catastrophizers (score <30, N.=159; AUC: 0.90) and indicated an MIC of 11 points (95%CI: 8-14) for catastrophizers (score >30, N.=33; AUC: 0.84).

Conclusions: The PCS-I showed good ability to detect patient-perceived clinical changes in chronic LBP postrehabilitation. The MIC values we determined provide a benchmark for assessing individual improvement in this clinical context.

Clinical Rehabilitation Impact: The present study calculated - in a sample of people with chronic LBP - the responsiveness and MIC of the PCS. These values increase confidence in interpreting score changes, enhancing their meaningfulness for both research and clinical contexts.

Citing Articles

Psychologically Informed Physical Therapy Management of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain in Culturally Diverse Populations: An Intervention Logic Model.

Monroe K, Archer K, Wegener S, Gombatto S J Pain. 2024; 26:104684.

PMID: 39326720 PMC: 11798538. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2024.104684.

Characteristics of patients with myofascial pain syndrome of the low back.

Tsai P, Edison J, Wang C, Gramlich M, Manning K, Deshpande G Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):11912.

PMID: 38789439 PMC: 11126576. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-61319-5.

The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Italian version in people with chronic low back pain.

Monticone M, Maurandi C, Porcu E, Arippa F, Wand B, Corona G BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024; 25(1):279.

PMID: 38605331 PMC: 11007946. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07420-2.

Establishing the interpretability and utility of the 4-item BriefPCS.

You D, Cook K, Lannon E, Ziadni M, Darnall B, Mackey S Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):21272.

PMID: 38042937 PMC: 10693612. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-48433-6.

Pain Catastrophizing and Its Association with Military Medical Disability Among US Active Duty Service Members with Chronic Predominately Musculoskeletal Pain: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

Schaaf S, Flynn D, Steffen A, Ransom J, Doorenbos A J Pain Res. 2023; 16:3837-3852.

PMID: 37965277 PMC: 10642487. DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S400313.

References

Meroni R, Piscitelli D, Bonetti F, Zambaldi M, Cerri C, Guccione A . Rasch Analysis of the Italian version of Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS-I). J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2014; 28(4):661-73. DOI: 10.3233/BMR-140564. View

Wang Y, Hart D, Stratford P, Mioduski J . Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement. Phys Ther. 2011; 91(5):675-88. DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20100229. View

Kamper S, Maher C, Mackay G . Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2010; 17(3):163-70. PMC: 2762832. DOI: 10.1179/jmt.2009.17.3.163. View

Crombez G, De Paepe A, Veirman E, Eccleston C, Verleysen G, Van Ryckeghem D . Let's talk about pain catastrophizing measures: an item content analysis. PeerJ. 2020; 8:e8643. PMC: 7060750. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8643. View

Monticone M, Baiardi P, Ferrari S, Foti C, Mugnai R, Pillastrini P . Development of the Italian version of the Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS-I): cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability, validity and sensitivity to change. Qual Life Res. 2011; 21(6):1045-50. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-0007-4. View

Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Rocca B, Magni S, Brivio F, Ferrante S . A multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme improves disability, kinesiophobia and walking ability in subjects with chronic low back pain: results of a randomised controlled pilot study. Eur Spine J. 2014; 23(10):2105-13. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3478-5. View

Schutze R, Rees C, Smith A, Slater H, Campbell J, OSullivan P . How Can We Best Reduce Pain Catastrophizing in Adults With Chronic Noncancer Pain? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Pain. 2017; 19(3):233-256. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2017.09.010. View

George S, Valencia C, Beneciuk J . A psychometric investigation of fear-avoidance model measures in patients with chronic low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010; 40(4):197-205. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2010.3298. View

de Vet H, Terluin B, Knol D, Roorda L, Mokkink L, Ostelo R . Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied "minimally important change" values. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 63(1):37-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.011. View

10.

Wheeler C, de C Williams A, Morley S . Meta-analysis of the psychometric properties of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and associations with participant characteristics. Pain. 2019; 160(9):1946-1953. DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001494. View

11.

Franchignoni F, Vercelli S, Giordano A, Sartorio F, Bravini E, Ferriero G . Minimal clinically important difference of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure (DASH) and its shortened version (QuickDASH). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013; 44(1):30-9. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2014.4893. View

12.

Walton D, Wideman T, Sullivan M . A Rasch analysis of the pain catastrophizing scale supports its use as an interval-level measure. Clin J Pain. 2013; 29(6):499-506. DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e318269569c. View

13.

Fernandes L, Storheim K, Lochting I, Grotle M . Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Norwegian pain catastrophizing scale in patients with low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012; 13:111. PMC: 3407790. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-111. View

14.

Engel L, Beaton D, Touma Z . Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Outcome Measure Score Interpretation. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2018; 44(2):177-188. DOI: 10.1016/j.rdc.2018.01.011. View

15.

Chibnall J, Tait R . Long-term adjustment to work-related low back pain: associations with socio-demographics, claim processes, and post-settlement adjustment. Pain Med. 2009; 10(8):1378-88. DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00738.x. View

16.

Martinez-Calderon J, Jensen M, Morales-Asencio J, Luque-Suarez A . Pain Catastrophizing and Function In Individuals With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin J Pain. 2019; 35(3):279-293. DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000676. View

17.

Bonett D . Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Stat Med. 2002; 21(9):1331-5. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1108. View

18.

Terwee C, Dekker F, Wiersinga W, Prummel M, Bossuyt P . On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003; 12(4):349-62. DOI: 10.1023/a:1023499322593. View

19.

Revicki D, Hays R, Cella D, Sloan J . Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(2):102-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012. View

20.

Osman A, Barrios F, Gutierrez P, Kopper B, Merrifield T, Grittmann L . The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: further psychometric evaluation with adult samples. J Behav Med. 2000; 23(4):351-65. DOI: 10.1023/a:1005548801037. View