Performance of a Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Form in Older Adults with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a 29-item short-form version of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and a novel "impact score" calculated from those measures. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Rural primary care practices. SUBJECTS: Adults aged ≥ 55 years with chronic musculoskeletal pain, not currently receiving prescription opioids. METHODS: Subjects completed the PROMIS short form at baseline and after 3 months. Patient subsets were compared to assess reliability and responsiveness. Construct validity was tested by comparing baseline scores among patients who were or were not applying for Worker's Compensation; those with higher or lower catastrophizing scores; and those with or without recent falls. Responsiveness was assessed with mean score changes, effect sizes, and standardized response means. RESULTS: Internal consistency was good to excellent, with Cronbach's alpha between 0.81 and 0.95 for all scales. Among patients who rated their pain as stable, test-retest scores at 3 months were around 0.70 for most scales. PROMIS scores were worse among patients seeking or receiving worker's compensation, those with high catastrophizing scores, and those with recent falls. Among patients rating pain as "much less" at 3 months, absolute effect sizes for the various scales ranged from 0.24 (Depression) to 1.93 (Pain Intensity). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the PROMIS short 29-item form may be useful for the study of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Our findings also support use of the novel "impact score" recommended by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain.

Environmental, Behavioral, and Cultural Factors That Influence Healthy Eating in Rural Women of Childbearing Age: Findings From a PhotoVoice Study.

Despite increasing recognition of the role nutrition plays in the health of current and future generations, many women struggle to eat healthy. We used the PhotoVoice method to engage 10 rural women in identifying perceived barriers and facilitators to healthy eating in their homes and community. They took 354 photographs, selected and wrote captions for 62 images, and explored influential factors through group conversation. Using field notes and participant-generated captions, the research team categorized images into factors at the individual, relational, community/organizational, and societal levels of a socioecological model. Barriers included limited time, exposure to marketing, and the high cost of food. Facilitators included preparing food in advance and support from non-partners; opportunities to hunt, forage, and garden were also facilitators, which may be amplified in this rural environment. Nutritional interventions for rural women of childbearing age should be multi-component and focus on removing barriers at multiple socioecological levels.

Mammography Decision Aid Reduces Decisional Conflict for Women in Their Forties Considering Screening.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend a personalized approach to mammography screening for women in their forties; however, methods to do so are lacking. An evidence-based mammography screening decision aid was developed as an electronic mobile application and evaluated in a before-after study. METHODS: The decision aid (Mammopad) included modules on breast cancer, mammography, risk assessment, and priority setting about screening. Women aged 40-49 years who were patients of rural primary care clinics, had no major risk factors for breast cancer, and no mammography during the previous year were invited to use the decision aid. Twenty women participated in pretesting of the decision aid and 75 additional women completed the before-after study. The primary outcome was decisional conflict measured before and after using Mammopad. Secondary outcomes included decision self-efficacy and intention to begin or continue mammography screening. Differences comparing measures before versus after use were determined using Wilcoxon signed rank tests. RESULTS: After using Mammopad, women reported reduced decisional conflict based on mean Decisional Conflict Scale scores overall (46.33 versus 8.33; Z = -7.225; p < 0.001) and on all subscales (p < 0.001). Women also reported increased mean Decision Self-Efficacy Scale scores (79.67 versus 95.73; Z = 6.816, p < 0.001). Although 19% of women changed their screening intentions, this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Women reported less conflict about their decisions for mammography screening, and felt more confident to make decisions after using Mammopad. This approach may help guide women through the decision making process to determine personalized screening choices that are appropriate for them.