Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

To develop and validate the Vellore Pain Impact Questionnaire to assess the impact of low back pain in the Indian context.

Design

A cross-sectional, quantitative study with two phases: development and validation of the Vellore Pain Impact Questionnaire. Content validity was ensured through a Delphi process involving five occupational therapists, while reliability and criterion validity were assessed.

Setting

The study was conducted at the Occupational Therapy outpatient unit of a tertiary care teaching hospital in South India.

Participants

Sixty-five patients aged 18 years and above with nonspecific low back pain persisting for at least 12 weeks were recruited through convenience sampling.

Intervention

Not applicable.

Main Measures

The Vellore Pain Impact Questionnaire underwent inter-rater and test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Criterion validity was evaluated against the Oswestry disability index.

Results

The Vellore Pain Impact Questionnaire showed excellent content validity (content validity index: 0.96). It demonstrated high reliability, with inter-rater (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.985) and test-retest (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.973) scores. The receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated moderate criterion validity (area under the curve: 0.628) compared to the Oswestry disability index. The questionnaire's broader coverage of ICF categories, including psychological and environmental factors, highlights its ability to capture the multidimensional impact of low back pain.

Conclusions

The Vellore Pain Impact Questionnaire shows promise as a reliable and culturally relevant tool for assessing low back pain impact in India, addressing physical, psychological, and social factors. However, further studies are necessary to establish its validity across diverse populations and settings.

Keywords

Low back pain ICF core set reliability validity occupational therapy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Hoy

March

Brooks

, et al. The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73: 968–974.

Burton

Balagué

Cardon

, et al. Chapter 2 European guidelines for prevention in low back pain. Eur Spine J 2006; 15: s136–s168.

Maher

Underwood

Buchbinder

. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet Lond Engl 2017; 389: 736–747.

Gupta

Nandini

. Prevalence of low back pain in non working rural housewives of Kanpur, India. [cited 2024 Oct 3]. https://ijomeh.eu/Prevalence-of-low-back-pain-in-non-working-rural-housewives-of-kanpur-india,1963,0,2.html.

Mathew

Safar

RTSA

Banu

, et al. The prevalence and correlates of low back pain in adults: a cross sectional study from Southern India. Int J Med Public Health 2010; 342–346.

Ahdhi

Subramanian

Saya

, et al. Prevalence of low back pain and its relation to quality of life and disability among women in rural area of Puducherry, India. Indian J Pain 2016; 30: 111–115.

Baker

ADL

. A study of the natural history of back pain: part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. In: Banaszkiewicz

Kader

(eds) Classic papers in orthopaedics. London: Springer, 2014, pp.241–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5451-8_59 .

Davidson

. Oswestry disability questionnaire. In: Michalos

(ed) Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2014, pp.4533–4537. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2035 .

Roland

Fairbank

. The Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine 2000; 25: 3115–3124.

10.

Kopec

Esdaile

Abrahamowicz

, et al. The Quebec back pain disability scale. Measurement properties. Spine 1995; 20: 341–352.

11.

Waddell

Main

. Assessment of severity in low-back disorders. Spine 1984; 9: 204–208.

12.

Longo

Loppini

Denaro

, et al. Rating scales for low back pain. Br Med Bull 2010; 94: 81–144.

13.

Calmon Almeida

da Silva Junior

de Camargo

, et al.

Do the commonly used standard questionnaires measure what is of concern to patients with low back pain?

Clin Rehabil 2020; 34: 1313–1324.

14.

Perneros

Tropp

. Development, validity, and reliability of the assessment of pain and occupational performance (POP): a new instrument using two dimensions in the investigation of disability in back pain. Spine J 2009; 9: 486–498.

15.

Jiménez Buñuales

González Diego

Martín Moreno

. International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) 2001. Rev Esp Salud Publica 2002; 76: 271–279.

16.

Allan

Campbell

Guptill

, et al. A conceptual model for interprofessional education: the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). J Interprof Care 2006; 20: 235–245.

17.

Cieza

Stucki

Weigl

, et al. ICF core sets for low back pain. J Rehabil Med 2004; 44: 69–74.

18.

Polit

Beck

. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2006; 29: 489–497.

19.

Koo

. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15: 155–163.

20.

Wang

Chen

Peng

, et al. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of three measurements for assessing tactile acuity in individuals with chronic low back pain. Evid Based Complement Altern Med ECAM 2020; 2020: 8367095.

21.

Bobos

Ziebart

Furtado

, et al. Psychometric properties of the global rating of change scales in patients with low back pain, upper and lower extremity disorders. A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Orthop 2020; 21: 40–48.

22.

Sigl

Cieza

Brockow

, et al. Content comparison of low back pain-specific measures based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Clin J Pain 2006; 22: 147–153.

23.

Røe

Sveen

Bautz-Holter

. Retaining the patient perspective in the international classification of functioning, disability and health core set for low back pain. Patient Prefer Adherence 2008; 2: 337–347.

24.

Fairbank

JCT

Pynsent

. The Oswestry disability index. Spine 2000; 25: 2940–2953.

25.

Vianin

. Psychometric properties and clinical usefulness of the Oswestry disability index. J Chiropr Med 2008; 7: 161–163.

26.

Haas

Nyiendo

. Diagnostic utility of the McGill pain questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire for classification of low back pain syndromes. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1992; 15: 90–98.

27.

Ruta

Garratt

Wardlaw

, et al. Developing a valid and reliable measure of health outcome for patients with low back pain. Spine 1994; 19: 1887–1896.

28.

Grönblad

Hupli

Wennerstrand

, et al. Intercorrelation and test-retest reliability of the pain disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry disability questionnaire (ODQ) and their correlation with pain intensity in low back pain patients. Clin J Pain 1993; 9: 189–195.

The Vellore Pain Impact Questionnaire (V-PIQ): Initial validation of a tool for assessing the impact of low back pain based on the brief ICF core set