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
Observational Study
. 2023 Apr 17:25:e41189.
doi: 10.2196/41189.

Development of the Emoji Faces Pain Scale and Its Validation on Mobile Devices in Adult Surgery Patients: Longitudinal Observational Study

Affiliations
Observational Study

Development of the Emoji Faces Pain Scale and Its Validation on Mobile Devices in Adult Surgery Patients: Longitudinal Observational Study

Lili Li et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Measuring pain on digital devices using classic unidimensional pain scales such as the visual analog scale (VAS), numerical rating scale (NRS), and faces pain scale (FPS) has been proven to be reliable and valid. Emoji are pictographs designed in colorful form following the Unicode standard. It could be more beneficial to use emoji as faces of FPS on digital devices because emoji can easily fit on most devices and emoji are open-source so no approval would be needed before use. With a concise and user-friendly design, the emoji faces pain scale (Emoji-FPS) might be more generalizable to a wider population and more preferred by digital device users.

Objective: This study was designed to develop an Emoji-FPS as well as to evaluate its reliability, validity, and preference on mobile devices in adult patients who underwent surgery.

Methods: A modified Delphi technique with 2 rounds of web-based surveys was applied to obtain panelists' consensus on the sequence of emoji that can best represent 6 levels of pain. The initial candidate sequences of emoji for the Delphi process were constructed referring to 2 well-validated FPSs (Wong-Baker FACES pain rating scale [Wong-Baker FACES] and faces pain scale-revised [FPS-R]). Then, a prospective cohort of patients scheduled to receive perianal surgery was recruited and asked to complete a web-based questionnaire on a mobile device at 5 time points (before surgery [T1], wake up after surgery [T2], 4 hours after surgery [T3], the second day after surgery [T4], and 15 minutes after T4 [T5]). The 4 well-validated pain scales (NRS, VAS, Wong-Baker FACES, and FPS-R) were used as reference scales.

Results: After 2 rounds of surveys on 40 Delphi panelists, an Emoji-FPS was finally determined to represent 6 pain levels (0, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10) from "no hurt" to "hurts worst." For validation, 300 patients were recruited and 299 were analyzed, the mean age of whom was 38.5 (SD 10.5) years, and 106 (35.5%) were women. For concurrent validity, the Emoji-FPS was highly correlated with 4 reference scales with Spearman correlation coefficient ρ ranging from 0.91 to 0.95. Excellent agreements were observed between 4 versions of Emoji-FPS (iOS, Android, Microsoft, and OpenMoji), with weighted κ coefficients ranging from 0.96 to 0.97. For discriminant validity, patients' mean preoperative Emoji-FPS score (T1) was significantly higher than their postoperative Emoji-FPS score (T4) with a difference of 1.4 (95% CI 1.3-1.6; P<.001). For test-retest reliability, Emoji-FPS scores measured at T4 and T5 were highly correlated with a ρ of 0.91. The Emoji-FPS was mostly preferred, followed by the Wong-Baker FACES, FPS-R, NRS, and VAS.

Conclusions: The Emoji-FPS is reliable and valid compared with traditional pain scales in adult surgery patients.

Keywords: emoji; mHealth; pain; scale development; surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of patients’ rank of preference of 5 pain scales. Emoji-FPS: emoji faces pain scale; FPS-R: faces pain scale-revised; NRS: numerical rating scale; VAS: visual analog scale; WB FACES: Wong-Baker FACES.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Younger J, McCue R, Mackey S. Pain outcomes: a brief review of instruments and techniques. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2009;13(1):39–43. doi: 10.1007/s11916-009-0009-x. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/19126370 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gries K, Berry P, Harrington M, Crescioni M, Patel M, Rudell K, Safikhani S, Pease S, Vernon M. Literature review to assemble the evidence for response scales used in patient-reported outcome measures. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2:41. doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0056-3. doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0056-3.56 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Karcioglu O, Topacoglu H, Dikme O, Dikme O. A systematic review of the pain scales in adults: which to use? Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36(4):707–714. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.01.008.S0735-6757(18)30008-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Li L, Liu X, Herr K. Postoperative pain intensity assessment: a comparison of four scales in Chinese adults. Pain Med. 2007;8(3):223–234. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00296.x.PME296 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Safikhani S, Gries KS, Trudeau JJ, Reasner D, Rüdell K, Coons SJ, Bush EN, Hanlon J, Abraham L, Vernon M. Response scale selection in adult pain measures: results from a literature review. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0053-6. doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0053-6.53 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types