↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Words that describe chronic musculoskeletal pain: implications for assessing pain quality across cultures

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#46 of 1,169)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
80 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Words that describe chronic musculoskeletal pain: implications for assessing pain quality across cultures
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, November 2016
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s119212
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saurab Sharma, Anupa Pathak, Mark Jensen

Abstract

People from different cultures who speak different languages may experience pain differently. This possible variability has important implications for evaluating the validity of pain quality measures that are directly translated into different languages without cultural adaptations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of language and culture on the validity of pain quality measures by comparing the words that individuals with chronic pain from Nepal use to describe their pain with those used by patients from the USA. A total of 101 individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain in Nepal were asked to describe their pain. The rates of the different pain descriptor domains and phrases used by the Nepali sample were then compared to the published rates of descriptors used by patients from the USA. The content validity of commonly used measures for assessing pain quality was then evaluated. While there was some similarity between patients from Nepal and the USA in how they describe pain, there were also important differences, especially in how pain quality was described. For example, many patients from Nepal used metaphors to describe their pain. Also, the patients from Nepal often used a category of pain descriptor - which describes a physical state - not used by patients from the USA. Only the original McGill Pain Questionnaire was found to have content validity for assessing pain quality in patients from Nepal, although other existing pain quality measures could be adapted to be content valid by adding one or two additional descriptors, depending on the measure in question. The findings indicate that direct translations of measures that are developed using samples of patients from one country or culture are not necessarily content valid for use in other countries or cultures; some adaptations may be required in order for such measures to be most useful in new language and culture.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 80 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Australia 1 3%
Unknown 37 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Other 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Psychology 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 11 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2020.
All research outputs
#342,317
of 16,038,450 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#46
of 1,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,643
of 385,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#4
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,038,450 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 385,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.