%0期刊文章@ 1438- 8871% I JMIR出版公司%V 16卡塔尔世界杯8强波胆分析% N 5% P e127% T痛被子:基于web的视觉疼痛评估工具在成人慢性疼痛中的临床可行性% a Lalloo,Chitra % a Kumbhare,Dinesh % a Stinson,Jennifer N % a Henry,James L %+医学科学研究生项目，麦克马斯特大学健康科学学院，HSC-4N35, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8，加拿大，1 905 525 9140，lallooc@mcmaster.ca %K慢性疼痛%K评估工具%K互联网%K临床可行性%D 2014 %7 12.05.2014 %9原始论文%J J医学互联网Res %G英文%X背景:慢性疼痛是一种普遍的和使人衰弱的问题。准确及时的疼痛评估对疼痛管理至关重要。特别是，疼痛需要持续跟踪一段时间，以衡量不同治疗的有效性。在目前的临床实践中，纸质问卷是疼痛评估的标准。然而，这些方法并不利于捕捉或追踪慢性疼痛的复杂感觉。Pain- quilt(以前被称为标志性疼痛评估工具)是一种基于网络的工具，用于以时间戳记录的形式对疼痛进行可视化自我报告和跟踪(质量、强度、位置、跟踪器)。它已经在患有慢性疼痛的青少年和成人中进行了迭代开发和评估，包括可用性测试和内容验证。临床可行性是新工具广泛应用的重要踏脚石。 Our group has demonstrated Pain-QuILT clinical feasibility in the context of a pediatric chronic pain clinic. We sought to extend these findings by evaluating Pain-QuILT clinical feasibility from the perspective of adults with chronic pain, in comparison with standard paper-based methods (McGill Pain Questionnaire [MPQ] and Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]). Objective: The goal of our study was to assess Pain-QuILT for (1) ease of use, (2) time for completion, (3) patient preferences, and (4) to explore the patterns of self-reported pain across the Pain-QuILT, MPQ, and BPI. Methods: Participants were recruited during a scheduled follow-up visit at a hospital-affiliated pain management and physical rehabilitation clinic in southwestern Ontario. Participants self-reported their current pain using the Pain-QuILT, MPQ, and BPI (randomized order). A semistructured interview format was used to capture participant preferences for pain self-report. Results: The sample consisted of 50 adults (54% female, 27/50) with a mean age of 50 years. Pain-QuILT was rated as significantly easier to use than both the MPQ and BPI (P<.01) and was also associated with the fewest difficulties in completion. On average, the time to complete each tool was less than 5 minutes. A majority of participants (58%, 29/50) preferred Pain-QuILT for reporting their pain over alternate methods (16%, 8/50 for MPQ; 14%, 7/50 for BPI; 12%, 6/50 for “other”). The most commonly chosen pain descriptors on MPQ were matched with Pain-QuILT across 91% of categories. There was a moderate-to-high correlation between Pain-QuILT and BPI scores for pain intensity (r=.70, P<.01). Conclusions: The results of this clinical feasibility study in adults with chronic pain are consistent with our previously published pediatric findings. Specifically, data indicate that Pain-QuILT is (1) easy to use, (2) quick to complete, (3) preferred by a majority of patients, and (4) correlated as expected with validated pain measures. As a digital, patient-friendly method of assessing and tracking pain, we conclude that Pain-QuILT has potential to add significant value as one standard component of chronic pain management. %M 24819478 %R 10.2196/jmir.3292 %U //www.mybigtv.com/2014/5/e127/ %U https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3292 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24819478