The Clinical journal of pain · 2026
Interpretation of the Avoidance-Endurance Fast-Screen Questionnaire: A Qualitative Study Using Cognitive Interviews in Patients With High-Impact Chronic Pain.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Razniak Line M S, Vægter Henrik B, Aagaard Andrea, Andersen Tonny E, Hasenbring Monika I, Rasmussen Maria L, Ravn Sophie L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study examined how patients with high-impact chronic pain interpreted and responded to the Danish version of the Avoidance-Endurance Fast-Screen (AE-FS) to identify potential problematic items that did not correspond with item intention and causes for this.
METHODS: Participants were recruited from patients referred to treatment in an interdisciplinary pain center to partake in cognitive interviews following the Three-Step Test-Interview protocol. Interview transcripts were analyzed in 2 steps. First, a coding analysis was used to code responses in relation to item intention using 4 predefined codes (congruent, incongruent, ambiguous, or confused) to identify potential problematic items (≤50% congruent responses). Second, a reflexive thematic analysis was used to uncover causes of incongruency in the problematic items as well as elements of confusion across all items.
RESULTS: Thirty-four participants were included. Three items (1, 4, and 6) were identified as being problematic with items 1 and 4 having many incongruent responses. The most common causes of incongruency were related to formulations of items, and 7 elements of confusion were uncovered across all items.
DISCUSSION: The current study identified potential issues with participants' interpretation of 3 items of the AE-FS. However, as interviews may be prone to the influence of social desirability bias, the interpretation of the results for item 4, where the most frequent noncongruent interpretation of making a fuss was equal to lack of pain validation, is done with caution. Therefore, a revision is suggested with reformulation of item 6 and removal of item 1, which, however, will require validation in future research.
METHODS: Participants were recruited from patients referred to treatment in an interdisciplinary pain center to partake in cognitive interviews following the Three-Step Test-Interview protocol. Interview transcripts were analyzed in 2 steps. First, a coding analysis was used to code responses in relation to item intention using 4 predefined codes (congruent, incongruent, ambiguous, or confused) to identify potential problematic items (≤50% congruent responses). Second, a reflexive thematic analysis was used to uncover causes of incongruency in the problematic items as well as elements of confusion across all items.
RESULTS: Thirty-four participants were included. Three items (1, 4, and 6) were identified as being problematic with items 1 and 4 having many incongruent responses. The most common causes of incongruency were related to formulations of items, and 7 elements of confusion were uncovered across all items.
DISCUSSION: The current study identified potential issues with participants' interpretation of 3 items of the AE-FS. However, as interviews may be prone to the influence of social desirability bias, the interpretation of the results for item 4, where the most frequent noncongruent interpretation of making a fuss was equal to lack of pain validation, is done with caution. Therefore, a revision is suggested with reformulation of item 6 and removal of item 1, which, however, will require validation in future research.