BackgroundThe Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) is a tool designed to evaluate the impact of shoulder pathology. The aim of this study was to cross culturally adapt a Spanish version of the SPADI for Spanish population with a musculoskeletal shoulder pain, and to determine the psychometric properties of this instrument using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).MethodsCross-cultural adaptation was performed according to the international guidelines. To assess factor structure, a confirmatory factor analysis was done. Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Item-total and inter-item correlations were assessed. Pearson and Spearman correlations were calculated to assess the convergent validity between SPADI and quick-DASH.ResultsA new Spanish version of SPADI was achieved. The original SPADI factor structure was tested by CFA, obtaining a poor fit: relative chi-square (χ2/df) 3.16, CFI 0.89, NFI 0.92, and RMSEA 0.10 (90 % CI 0.08 to 0.12). An additional model was tested, after deleting items which have had a poor adjustment in the model (1, 11, and 12), obtaining the best fit: relative chi-square (χ2/df) of 1.94, CFI 0.98, NFI 0.95, GFI 0,95, and RMSEA 0.06 (90 % CI 0.04 to 0.09). The analysis confirmed the bidimensional structure (pain and disability subscales). A correlation Spearman’s Rho coefficient of 0.752 (p < 0.0001) and a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90 were obtained.ConclusionsThis study validated a new 10-items version of SPADI for Spanish population with musculoskeletal shoulder pain providing a patient reported outcome measure that could be used in both clinical practice and research.

Self-efficacy beliefs are associated with less physical impairment and pain intensity in people with chronic pain. Interventions that build self-efficacy beliefs may foster behavioral changes among this population. A non-randomized trial has been carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of pain neuroscience education (PNE) plus usual care in modifying self-efficacy beliefs, pain intensity, pain interference and analgesics consumption in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Participants were allocated to an experimental (PNE plus usual care, n = 49) and a control (usual care alone, n = 51) group. The primary outcome was self-efficacy beliefs (Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale), and the secondary outcomes were pain intensity, pain interference (Graded Chronic Pain Scale) and analgesics consumption. The participant’s pain knowledge (revised Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire) after PNE intervention was also assessed to analyze its influence on every outcome measure. All the outcome measures were assessed at the baseline and at four-week and four-month follow-ups. PNE plus usual care was more effective than usual care alone to increase self-efficacy beliefs and decrease pain intensity and pain interference at all follow-up points. No differences between groups were found in terms of analgesics consumption. Knowledge of pain neurophysiology did not modify the effects of PNE plus usual care in any of the outcome measures. These results should be taken with caution because of the non-randomized nature of this design, the limited follow-ups and the uncertainty of the presence of clinical changes in self-efficacy for participants. Larger, methodological sound trials are needed.

These results should be considered in light of possible limits imposed by the study. Its pragmatic nature would allow a potential transfer to usual care.