Screening for Pain in the Ambulatory Cancer Setting: Is 0-10 Enough?

Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Screening for Pain in the Ambulatory Cancer Setting: Is 0-10 Enough?

Virginia T. LeBaron, PhD, APRN, FAANP⇑, Traci M. Blonquist, MS, Fangxin Hong, PhD, Barbara Halpenny, MS and Donna L. Berry, PhD, FAAN

+
Author Affiliations

University of Virginia School of Nursing, Charlottesville, VA; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Phyllis F. Cantor Center for Research in Nursing and Patient Care Services; and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Corresponding author: Virginia T. LeBaron, PhD, APRN, FAANP, University of Virginia School of Nursing, McLeod Hall, 202 Jeanette Lancaster Way, Charlottesville, VA 22903-3388; e-mail: vlebaron@virginia.edu.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore concordance between patient self-reports of pain on validated questionnaires and discussions of pain in the ambulatory oncology setting.

Methods: Adult, ambulatory patients (N = 452) with all stages of cancer were included. Three pain measures were evaluated: two items from the Symptom Distress Scale (frequency [SDSF] and intensity [SDSI]) and the Pain Intensity Numeric Scale (PINS). Relevant pain was defined as: (1) scores 3 of 5 on SDSF or SDSI or 5 of 10 on the (PINS); or (2) discussion of existing pain in an audio-recorded clinic visit. For each scale, McNemar's test assessed concordance of patient self-reports of relevant pain with discussions of relevant pain in the audio-recorded clinic visit. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated and a receiver operating characteristic analysis evaluated thresholds on self-report pain questionnaires to best identify relevant pain discussed in clinic.

Results: Identification of relevant pain by self-report was discordant (P < .001) with discussed pain coded in audio-recorded visits for all three measures. Specificity was higher for intensity (SDSI, 0.94; PINS, 0.97) than frequency (SDSF, 0.87); sensitivity was higher for frequency (SDSF, 0.35) than intensity (SDSI, 0.24; PINS, 0.12). Accuracy was higher for the SDS pain items (SDSF, 0.57; SDSI, 0.54) than for PINS (0.48). Receiver operating characteristic analysis curves suggest that lower threshold scores may improve the identification of relevant pain.
Conclusion: Self-report pain screening measures favored specificity over sensitivity. Asking about pain frequency (in addition to intensity) and reconsidering threshold scores on pain intensity scales may be practical strategies to more accurately identify patients with cancer who have relevant pain.