title: Screening for Pain in the Ambulatory Cancer Setting: Is 0-10 Enough?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  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.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  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.
authors: 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 vlebaron@virginia.edu.
authors: Virginia T
authors: VT
authors: LeBaron
authors: 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.
authors: Traci M
authors: TM
authors: Blonquist
authors: 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.
authors: Fangxin
authors: F
authors: Hong
authors: 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.
authors: Barbara
authors: B
authors: Halpenny
authors: 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.
authors: Donna L
authors: DL
authors: Berry
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000554:Ambulatory Care Facilities; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000150:complications*; D010146:Pain / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000209:etiology; D010147:Pain Measurement; D012372:ROC Curve; D057566:Self Report; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D055815:Young Adult