ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Patients' interpretations of individual PROMIS-10 Global Health items: a cognitive interview study in high-impact chronic pain.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to explore the content validity of the Danish version of the PROMIS-10 Global Health questionnaire in patients with high-impact chronic pain by (1) identifying problematic items and reasons for misunderstandings between participants' interpretations and the intended meaning, and (2) exploring how participants understand and interpret the items.
methodsIndividual cognitive interviews were conducted with participants with high-impact chronic pain referred to two Danish Pain Centers using a structured step-by-step interview approach. The first objective was analyzed mainly using a deductive structured approach, while the second objective was analyzed mainly using an inductive thematic approach focusing on participants' perspectives.
resultsParticipants (n = 19) generally understood the items as intended but showed 21% and 11% non-congruency for items 8r (fatigue) and 7r (pain intensity), as they responded based on a longer timeframe than "the past 7 days". Overall, participants interpreted the items through a physical, psychological and social perspective. Further, items 5 (social activities and relationships) and 6 (daily physical activities) were perceived to overlap thematically with item 9r (social activities and roles). Additionally, the provided examples in items 5 and 6 influenced responses, and some deemed item 7r irrelevant, as it did not reflect their pain experiences.
conclusionThe findings contribute to the validation of PROMIS-10 Global Health in patients with high-impact chronic pain by providing insights into how participants understand and interpret the items, highlighting areas for minor refinement. Further qualitative research on the validity of PROMIS-10 Global Health in this population is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.