Premium
Operationalization of the new Pain and Disability Drivers Management model: A modified Delphi survey of multidisciplinary pain management experts
Author(s) -
TousignantLaflamme Yannick,
Cook Chad E.,
Mathieu Annie,
Naye Florian,
Wellens Frédéric,
Wideman Timothy,
Martel MarcOlivier,
Lam Olivier TriTrinh
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/jep.13190
Subject(s) - operationalization , delphi method , relevance (law) , delphi , multidisciplinary approach , medicine , pain management , physical therapy , low back pain , alternative medicine , computer science , artificial intelligence , social science , philosophy , epistemology , pathology , sociology , political science , law , operating system
Background We recently proposed the Pain and Disability Drivers Management (PDDM) model, which was designed to outline comprehensive factors driving pain and disability in low back pain (LBP). Although we have hypothesized and proposed 41 elements, which make up the model's five domains, we have yet to assess the external validity of the PDDM's elements by expert consensus. Research objectives This study aimed to reach consensus among experts regarding the different elements that should be included in each domain of the PDDM model. Relevance The PDDM may assist clinicians and researchers in the delivery of targeted care and ultimately enhance treatment outcomes in LBP. Methods Using a modified Delphi survey, a two‐round online questionnaire was administered to a group of experts in musculoskeletal pain management. Participants were asked to rate the relevance of each element proposed within the model. Participants were also invited to add and rate new elements. Consensus was defined by a greater than or equal to 75% level of agreement. Results A total of 47 (round 1) and 33 (round 2) participants completed the survey. Following the first round, 38 of 41 of the former model elements reached consensus, and 10 new elements were proposed and later rated in the second round. Following this second round, consensus was reached for all elements (10 new + 3 from first round), generating a final model composed of 51 elements. Conclusion This expert consensus–derived list of clinical elements related to the management of LBP represents a first step in the validation of the PDDM model.