Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 May 25;12(5):e0178268.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178268. eCollection 2017.

Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire concerning pain management in Chinese orthopedic patients

Huan Fang  1 , Jingjuan Liang  2 , Zhen Hong  3 , Kenji Sugiyama  4 , Takao Nozaki  4 , Susumu Kobayashi  4 , Tetsuro Sameshima  4 , Hiroki Namba  4 , Tetsuya Asakawa  4
Affiliations

Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire concerning pain management in Chinese orthopedic patients

Huan Fang et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

The present study tested the clinical efficiency (item grouping, internal consistency of the subscales, construct validity, and clinical feasibility) of a widely used pain assessment system, the Mandarin version of the American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R-C), in Chinese patients. We also attempted to investigate the current quality of pain management provided in orthopedic inpatient units in China and provide baseline data. First, we investigated the test-retest reliability of APS-POQ-R-C. In total, 236 orthopedic patients were evaluated. Our results showed that APS-POQ-R-C has satisfactory internal consistency and construct validity, although some items are not appropriate for orthopedic patients. Test-retest reliability outcomes indicated that APS-POQ-R-C is a satisfactory battery with acceptable validity and reliability, and is therefore recommended for pain management in future studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Distribution of received information and treatment selection in the enrolled patients.
There are 92.37% of the patients received information about pain treatment options, and 60.17% of patients selected non-pharmacological methods to relieve pain.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Dihle A, Helseth S, Kongsgaard UE, Paul SM, Miaskowski C. Using the American Pain Society's patient outcome questionnaire to evaluate the quality of postoperative pain management in a sample of Norwegian patients. The journal of pain: official journal of the American Pain Society. 2006;7(4):272–80. - PubMed
    1. Kwon JH, Hui D, Chisholm G, Hong WT, Nguyen L, Bruera E. Experience of barriers to pain management in patients receiving outpatient palliative care. Journal of palliative medicine. 2013;16(8):908–14. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3717202. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2012.0610 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gilson AM, Joranson DE, Maurer MA. Improving state pain policies: recent progress and continuing opportunities. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2007;57(6):341–53. - PubMed
    1. Elliott AM, Smith BH, Penny KI, Smith WC, Chambers WA. The epidemiology of chronic pain in the community. Lancet. 1999;354(9186):1248–52. - PubMed
    1. Labianca R, Sarzi-Puttini P, Zuccaro SM, Cherubino P, Vellucci R, Fornasari D. Adverse effects associated with non-opioid and opioid treatment in patients with chronic pain. Clinical drug investigation. 2012;32 Suppl 1:53–63. - PubMed