Chronic pain such as you are experiencing is, indeed, more common than one might imagine. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) estimates approximately 50 million people in the United States are chronic pain sufferers. Chronic pain is defined as pain that lasts three or more months longer than the expected time for healing.
With this many people involved, the health care costs alone are something to motivate us to find a way to alleviate this problem. Up to 220 billion dollars are spent each year in health care costs centered around pain of this type. But even more than that, the impact on quality of life requires a response.
One thing health care professionals struggle with is how to measure the burden of pain on individual patients. What is the level of pain and duration of pain? How does this impact daily activities and/or overall function? Pain is a very subjective experience. What you might call a 10 (worst ever) level of pain on a scale of zero to 10 may feel like a three the day after an especially intense bout of pain that suddenly feels like a 20!
If we had a standardized way to measure pain, then we could be about the business of measuring change (hopefully improvement) with various treatment approaches. Efforts are underway to develop an intuitive, adaptive computer program that can quickly, easily, and accurately assess pain location, intensity, duration, frequency as well as put into practical terms how that pain is affecting function.
The first prototype for such a tool has been developed. A test pilot has been run and the results were very encouraging. The computer program takes an average of one and a half minutes to complete, whereas a typical pain survey takes about 10 minutes (sometimes longer). The dynamic computer survey was tested and found to be just as accurate as a full survey. The computerized prototype had fewer items and took much less time to complete. The scores for all four content areas (pain location, intensity, duration, and impact) were equivalent between the two tests.
This early feasibility study showed that the faster, shorter computerized method worked just as well as the longer, more cumbersome full test procedure. It is currently being used with more people in a follow-up study before it can be released for general use. For now, it’s two-thumbs up for this dynamic pain assessment system that yields an accurate picture of pain patterns and the impact of pain on function. The next step will be to conduct many studies of different treatment approaches and patient responses. With this standardized way to measure pain, it will be possible to compare the results of one treatment approach versus another in reducing the impact of pain on activity, function, and quality of life.