Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2020; 55(01): 054-061
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1700812
Artigo Original
Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. Published by Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Translation, Cross-cultural Adaptation and Reliability of Brazilian portuguese version of the DRAM Questionnaire for Psychometric Evaluation in Low Back Pain[∗]

Article in several languages: português | English
Carlos Tucci 
1   Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Alberto Jacob
1   Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Thiago Bonato de Amorim
1   Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Alex Oliveira de Araújo
1   Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Alexandre Fogaça Cristante
1   Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

13 August 2018

27 November 2018

Publication Date:
28 February 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Based on studies regarding pain physiology and its relation to emotional distress conditions, psychological evaluation became essential to determine the most favorable patient profiles to distinct therapeutic approaches. The Distress Risk Assessment Method (DRAM) has been developed as a screening instrument for patients with lumbar pain, classifying them in subgroups as normal, at risk, distressed somatic and distressed depressive, based on the two components of DRAM scores (Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire [MSPQ] and Zung questionnaires). The objective of the present study is to translate and culturally adapt the DRAM to the Brazilian Portuguese language, and to determine the reliability of the final version.

Methods As proposed by the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) method, a Brazilian Portuguese version of the DRAM has been applied to a sample of 85 individuals from 3 participant centers.

Results The results confirmed the reliability and reproducibility of the DRAM in its Brazilian Portuguese final version: Cronbach alpha of 0.815 (MSPQ) and 0.794 (Zung) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.688 (MSPQ) and 0.659 (Zung).

Conclusion The presented DRAM version in Brazilian Portuguese is reliable and is available to clinical practice use.

Keywords

back pain - low back pain - spinal diseases - quality of life - treatment outcome - risk assessment - surveys and questionnaires

∗ The present study was conducted at the Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.


 

  • Referências

  • 1 Ehrlich GE. Low back pain. Bull World Health Organ 2003; 81 (09) 671-676
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kikuchi S. New concept for backache: biopsychosocial pain syndrome. Eur Spine J 2008; 17 (Suppl. 04) 421-427
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Carragee EJ, Alamin TF, Miller JL, Carragee JM. Discographic, MRI and psychosocial determinants of low back pain disability and remission: a prospective study in subjects with benign persistent back pain. Spine J 2005; 5 (01) 24-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Trief PM, Grant W, Fredrickson B. A prospective study of psychological predictors of lumbar surgery outcome. Spine 2000; 25 (20) 2616-2621
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ryan CG, Gray HG, Newton M, Granat MH. The relationship between psychological distress and free-living physical activity in individuals with chronic low back pain. Man Ther 2010; 15 (02) 185-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Trief PM, Ploutz-Snyder R, Fredrickson BE. Emotional health predicts pain and function after fusion: a prospective multicenter study. Spine 2006; 31 (07) 823-830
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Amaral V, Marchi L, Martim H. , et al. Influence of psychosocial distress in the results of elective lumbar spine surgery. J Spine Surg 2017; 3 (03) 371-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hill JC, Vohora K, Dunn KM, Main CJ, Hay EM. Comparing the STarT back screening tool's subgroup allocation of individual patients with that of independent clinical experts. Clin J Pain 2010; 26 (09) 783-787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hill JC, Dunn KM, Main CJ, Hay EM. Subgrouping low back pain: a comparison of the STarT Back Tool with the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. Eur J Pain 2010; 14 (01) 83-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pilz B, Vasconcelos RA, Teixeira PP. , et al. Construct and discriminant validity of STarT Back Screening Tool - Brazilian version. Braz J Phys Ther 2017; 21 (01) 69-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Johnsen LG, Hellum C, Nygaard OP. , et al. Comparison of the SF6D, the EQ5D, and the oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc disease. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14: 148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Falavigna A, Teles AR, Braga GL, Barazzetti DO, Lazzaretti L, Tregnago AC. Instrumentos de avaliação clínica e funcional em cirurgia da coluna vertebral. Coluna/Columna 2011; 10 (01) 62-67
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Alhowimel A, AlOtaibi M, Radford K, Coulson N. Psychosocial factors associated with change in pain and disability outcomes in chronic low back pain patients treated by physiotherapist: A systematic review. SAGE Open Med 2018; 6: 2050312118757387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wilhelm M, Reiman M, Goode A. , et al. Psychological predictors of outcomes with lumbar spinal fusion: a systematic literature review. Physiother Res Int 2017 22. (02). Doi: 10.1002/pri.1648
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Nicholls JL, Azam MA, Burns LC. , et al. Psychological treatments for the management of postsurgical pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 2018; 9: 49-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Main CJ, Wood PL, Hollis S, Spanswick CC, Waddell G. The Distress and Risk Assessment Method. A simple patient classification to identify distress and evaluate the risk of poor outcome. Spine 1992; 17 (01) 42-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Main CJ. The Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (MSPQ). J Psychosom Res 1983; 27 (06) 503-514
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Main CJ, Waddell G. The back pain revolution. In: Waddell G. , ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Gandek B, Ware Jr JE. Methods for validating and norming translations of health status questionnaires: the IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51 (11) 953-959
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25 (24) 3186-3191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nordin M, Randhawa K, Torres P. , et al. The Global Spine Care Initiative: a systematic review for the assessment of spine-related complaints in populations with limited resources and in low- and middle-income communities. Eur Spine J 2018; 27 (Suppl. 06) 816-827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Berkanovic E. The effect of inadequate language translation on Hispanics' responses to health surveys. Am J Public Health 1980; 70 (12) 1273-1276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Alanay A, Cil A, Berk H. , et al. Reliability and validity of adapted Turkish Version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine 2005; 30 (21) 2464-2468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR. , et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60 (01) 34-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Pereira J. Análise de dados qualitativos: estratégias metodológicas para as ciências da saúde, humanas e sociais. 2a. ed. São Paulo: Edusp; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Mehta S, Bastero-Caballero RF, Sun Y. , et al. Performance of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) as a reliability index under various distributions in scale reliability studies. Stat Med 2018; 37 (18) 2734-2752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Grevitt M, Pande K, O'Dowd J, Webb J. Do first impressions count? A comparison of subjective and psychologic assessment of spinal patients. Eur Spine J 1998; 7 (03) 218-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Vigatto R, Alexandre NM, Correa Filho HR. Development of a Brazilian Portuguese version of the Oswestry Disability Index: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Spine 2007; 32 (04) 481-486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Daubs MD, Patel AA, Willick SE. , et al. Clinical impression versus standardized questionnaire: the spinal surgeon's ability to assess psychological distress. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92 (18) 2878-2883
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Vialle E, de Oliveira Pinto BM, Vialle LR, Gomez JD. Evaluation of psychosomatic distress and its influence in the outcomes of lumbar fusion procedures for degenerative disorders of the spine. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2015; 25 (01) (Suppl. 01) S25-S28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Pollock R, Lakkol S, Budithi C, Bhatia C, Krishna M. Effect of psychological status on outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Asian Spine J 2012; 6 (03) 178-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Abtahi AM, Brodke DS, Lawrence BD, Zhang C, Spiker WR. Association between patient-reported measures of psychological distress and patient satisfaction scores after spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (10) 824-828
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Theologis AA, Ailon T, Scheer JK. , et al International Spine Study Group. Impact of preoperative depression on 2-year clinical outcomes following adult spinal deformity surgery: the importance of risk stratification based on type of psychological distress. J Neurosurg Spine 2016; 25 (04) 477-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Soer R, Vroomen P, Stewart R. , et al. Groningen Spine Study Group. Factor analyses for the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire for working and nonworking patients with chronic low back pain. Spine J 2017; 17 (04) 603-609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Fjeld O, Grotle M, Siewers V, Pedersen LM, Nilsen KB, Zwart JA. Prognostic Factors for Persistent Leg-Pain in Patients Hospitalized With Acute Sciatica. Spine 2017; 42 (05) E272-E279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Linton SJ, Halldén K. Can we screen for problematic back pain? A screening questionnaire for predicting outcome in acute and subacute back pain. Clin J Pain 1998; 14 (03) 209-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Cicchetti D. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 1994; 6 (04) 284-290
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Daubs MD, Norvell DC, McGuire R. , et al. Fusion versus nonoperative care for chronic low back pain: do psychological factors affect outcomes?. Spine 2011; 36 (21, Suppl) S96-S109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar