↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Validation of the Hanyang Pain Scale for clerical workers with musculoskeletal pain

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Validation of the Hanyang Pain Scale for clerical workers with musculoskeletal pain
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, April 2016
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s102778
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ki Young Oh

Abstract

The visual analog scale (VAS) is the most widely used scale for pain assessment. However, its reflection of time-, sleep-, work-, psychological-, and reward-related pain characteristics is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a new pain scale, the Hanyang Pain Scale (HPS), evaluate its reliability, and assess its agreement with currently used scales. The HPS comprises a 10 cm long visual vertical bar, similar to the VAS, with eleven simple evaluation sentences related to pain frequency, work, and sleep. We selected 1,037 clerical workers as study subjects and conducted medical examinations through interviews, physical examinations, and musculoskeletal pain assessments tools including the VAS, HPS, and McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ). The reliability of the HPS and its agreement with VAS and MPQ were statistically analyzed. HPS test-retest reliability was very high (Pearson correlation coefficient =0.902). In particular, HPS test-retest reliability in the weak pain group (<4 points for both VAS and HPS) was greater (Pearson correlation coefficient =0.863) than that of VAS (0.721). Therefore, the HPS showed consistent pain assessment results in cases of relatively weak pain. Correlation was high between HPS and VAS scores (Spearman's ρ =0.526) and satisfactory between HPS and MPQ scores (Spearman's ρ =0.367). The newly developed HPS has high reliability and strong agreement with other currently widely used scales. In particular, HPS was more consistent than the VAS for relatively weak pain. Based on these findings, the HPS can be considered a useful pain assessment tool for clerical workers. Further clinical research on musculoskeletal diseases and on workers in other fields is required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 20%
Student > Postgraduate 2 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Researcher 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Unknown 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 2 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 20%
Chemistry 1 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 10%
Unknown 4 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 April 2016.
All research outputs
#20,816,184
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,589
of 1,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,996
of 315,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#16
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,996 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 315,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.