Psychometric characteristics of the Spanish version of instruments to measure neck pain disability

Background: The NDI, COM and NPQ are evaluation instruments for disability due to NP. There was no Spanish version of NDI or COM for which psychometric characteristics were known. The objectives of this study were to translate and culturally adapt the Spanish version of the Neck Disability Index Questionnaire (NDI), and the Core Outcome Measure (COM), to validate its use in Spanish speaking patients with non-specific neck pain (NP), and to compare their psychometric characteristics with those of the Spanish version of the Northwick Pain Questionnaire (NPQ).Methods: Translation/re-translation of the English versions of the NDI and the COM was done blindly and independently by a multidisciplinary team. The study was done in 9 primary care Centers and 12 specialty services from 9 regions in Spain, with 221 acute, subacute and chronic patients who visited their physician for NP: 54 in the pilot phase and 167 in the validation phase. Neck pain (VAS), referred pain (VAS), disability (NDI, COM and NPQ), catastrophizing (CSQ) and quality of life (SF-12) were measured on their first visit and 14 days later. Patients' self-assessment was used as the external criterion for pain and disability. In the pilot phase, patients' understanding of each item in the NDI and COM was assessed, and on day 1 test-retest reliability was estimated by giving a second NDI and COM in which the name of the questionnaires and the order of the items had been changed.Results: Comprehensibility of NDI and COM were good. Minutes needed to fill out the questionnaires [median, (P25, P75)]: NDI. 4 (2.2, 10.0), COM: 2.1 (1.0, 4.9). Reliability: [ICC, (95%CI)]: NDI: 0.88 (0.80, 0.93). COM: 0.85 (0.75,0.91). Sensitivity to change: Effect size for patients having worsened, not changed and improved between days 1 and 15, according to the external criterion for disability: NDI: -0.24, 0.15, 0.66; NPQ: -0.14, 0.06, 0.67; COM: 0.05, 0.19, 0.92. Validity: Results of NDI, NPQ and COM were consistent with the external criterion for disability, whereas only those from NDI were consistent with the one for pain. Correlations with VAS, CSQ and SF-12 were similar for NDI and NPQ (absolute values between 0.36 and 0.50 on day 1, between 0.38 and 0.70 on day 15), and slightly lower for COM (between 0.36 and 0.48 on day 1, and between 0.33 and 0.61 on day 15). Correlation between NDI and NPQ: r = 0.84 on day 1, r = 0.91 on day 15. Correlation between COM and NPQ: r = 0.63 on day 1, r = 0.71 on day 15.Conclusion: Although most psychometric characteristics of NDI, NPQ and COM are similar, those from the latter one are worse and its use may lead to patients' evolution seeming more positive than it actually is. NDI seems to be the best instrument for measuring NP-related disability, since its results are the most consistent with patient's assessment of their own clinical status and evolution. It takes two more minutes to answer the NDI than to answer the COM, but it can be reliably filled out by the patient without assistance.

Differential effects of two virtual reality interventions: distraction versus pain control

There is evidence that virtual reality (VR) pain distraction is effective at improving pain-related outcomes. However, more research is needed to investigate VR environments with other pain-related goals. The main aim of this study was to compare the differential effects of two VR environments on a set of pain-related and cognitive variables during a cold pressor experiment. One of these environments aimed to distract attention away from pain (VRD), whereas the other was designed to enhance pain control (VRC). Participants were 77 psychology students, who were randomly assigned to one of the following three conditions during the cold pressor experiment: (a) VRD, (b) VRC, or (c) Non-VR (control condition). Data were collected regarding both pain-related variables (intensity, tolerance, threshold, time perception, and pain sensitivity range) and cognitive variables (self-efficacy and catastrophizing). Results showed that in comparison with the control condition, the VRC intervention significantly increased pain tolerance, the pain sensitivity range, and the degree of time underestimation. It also increased self-efficacy in tolerating pain and led to a reduction in reported helplessness. The VRD intervention significantly increased the pain threshold and pain tolerance in comparison with the control condition, but it did not affect any of the cognitive variables. Overall, the intervention designed to enhance control seems to have a greater effect on the cognitive variables assessed. Although these results need to be replicated in further studies, the findings suggest that the VRC intervention has considerable potential in terms of increasing self-efficacy and modifying the negative thoughts that commonly accompany pain problems.