The Relationship between Beliefs about Pain and Functioning with Rheumatologic Conditions

Pain beliefs influence understanding of pain mechanisms and outcomes. This study in rheumatologic conditions sought to determine a relationship between beliefs about pain and functioning. Participants in Arthritis New Zealand’s (ANZ) exercise and education programmes were used. Demographic data and validated instruments used included the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale 2nd version-Short Form (AIMS2-SF) to measure functioning, and two scales of organic and psychological beliefs in Pain Beliefs Questionnaires (PBQ) to measure pain beliefs. 236 Members of ANZ were surveyed anonymously with AIMS2-SF and PBQ, with a 61% response rate; 144 responses were entered into the database. This study used α of 0.05 and a 1-β of 0.8 to detect for significant effect size estimated to ber=0.25. Analysis revealed a significant relationship between organic beliefs scale of PBQ and functioning of AIMS2-SF, with anrvalue of 0.32 andPvalue of 0.00008. No relationship was found between psychological beliefs scale of PBQ and AIMS2-SF. Organic pain beliefs are associated with poorer functioning. Psychological pain beliefs are not. Beliefs might have been modified by ANZ programmes. Clinicians should address organic pain beliefs early in consultation. Causal links between organic pain beliefs and functioning should be clarified.

Issues Related to the Translation of Measurement Scales: A Comparison of Versions of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale

As international collaborations increase, occupational therapists are becoming aware of the advantages of using consistent measures to compare outcomes of assessments across cultures. However, the translation of a measurement tool from one language to another may present issues that have to be addressed. This paper examines the advantages and issues related to the use of one tool, the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale (AIMS). It meets the goals of the World Health Organization (WHO, 1980, 1993), and it appears to meet the purpose of users in several countries, thereby eliminating the need to develop a new tool. Instead, the AIMS has been translated into several languages. This paper examines three translated versions of the AIMS and discusses the issues related to the process of translation of the tool.