A Brief Cancer Pain Assessment Tool in Japanese

Abstract

Despite recognition that pain management is an important component in the treatment of Japanese cancer patients, progress in this area has been slowed by the lack of an appropriate measure of pain. In a prospective, single-institution study, a Japanese translation of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-J) was administered to 121 patients to assess the intensity and impact of cancer-related pain. After an analysis of the instrument's reliability and validity, this study tested the utility of the new measure in an analysis of the adequacy of analgesic prescription. Results were compared with predictive models from studies using non-Japanese patient groups. Factor analysis of the BPI items resulted in two factors, pain severity and pain interference, showing consistency with other language versions of the tool. Coefficient alphas of greater than 0.80 for the items comprising these two subscales indicate a reliable self-report pain instrument. After establishing the validity and reliability of the BPI-J, we examined possible predictors of inadequate pain management in these Japanese cancer patients. Similar to studies done in other countries, women patients and those whose pain severity was underestimated by their physician were more likely to be undermanaged for pain. The results of this study support the utility of the Japanese BPI for studies of the epidemiology of cancer pain in Japan, as well as for the assessment of pain treatment outcome in Japanese-speaking patients.

Validity and Reliability of the Japanese Version of the Newest Vital Sign: A Preliminary Study

“…All patients were asked to complete the following 4 questionnaires: 1) the NVS-J; 2) a simple dementia screening test that assessed cognitive functioning (a total score of 12 or less out of 15 indicated possible dementia) [13]; 3) the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Japanese version) for assessing ADLs [14]; and 4) a self-rated HL Questionnaire (HLQ) by Ishikawa et al, in which functional, communicative, and critical HL were assessed separately, with the total score of all three HL perspectives indicating an individual's comprehensive HL level [15]. Further, the attending physicians of each participant completed a clinical global impression scale of participants' comprehensive HL levels (CGI-HL) that consisted of a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = “very poor,” 2 = “poor,” 3 = “fair,” 4 = “moderate,” 5 = “good”), on the basis of the following appraisals: 1) the participant always keeps his/her consultation appointments, 2) the participant understands the psycho-education concept about chronic pain management presented by the attending physician, 3) the participant can adequately adhere to medication regimens, 4) the participant can answer open questions, and 5) the participant can communicate coherently with the attending physician.…”

Efficacy and safety of enzyme-replacement-therapy with agalsidase alfa in 36 treatment-naïve Fabry disease patients

“…The effects of the ERT on pain were evaluated using BPI scores [12] ranging from zero units (no pain) to 10 units (worst possible pain). The pain scores in 14 patients (6 men, 8 women) who had a maximum pain of ≥3.0 units at BL, improved during the ERT period from 4.87 units (BL) to 2.00 units (60 M), while 2 other patients who had <3.0 units at BL remained stable.…”

“…In addition to plasma Gb3 and Lyso-Gb3 [11] used as biomarkers of FD, pain score and QoL were assessed once or twice a year, using brief pain inventory (BPI) [12], Euro QoL- 5 dimension (EQ-5D) [13] and EQ-visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) [13],respectively, every six months.…”

Utilization of brief pain inventory as an assessment tool for pain in patients with cancer: A focused review

“…[23] Also, there exist standardized methodological approaches to validate a questionnaire for pain assessment/measurement in the process of cross-cultural adaptation. [24] The BPI was translated into 14 languages – Brazilian,[25] Chinese,[26] Greek,[27] Hindi,[28] Italian,[29] Japanese,[30] Korean,[31] Malay,[32] Norwegian,[33] Polish,[34] Russian,[35] Spanish,[36] Taiwanese[37] and Thai[38] around the world. Comparison of these studies is provided in Table 1.…”