A B S T R A C TContext. Pain has significant socioeconomic, health, and quality-of-life implications. Racial-and ethnic-based differences in the pain care experience have been described. Racial and ethnic minorities tend to be undertreated for pain when compared with non-Hispanic Whites.Objectives. To provide health care providers, researchers, health care policy analysts, government officials, patients, and the general public with pertinent evidence regarding differences in pain perception, assessment, and treatment for racial and ethnic minorities. Evidence is provided for racialand ethnic-based differences in pain care across different types of pain (i.e., experimental pain, acute postoperative pain, cancer pain, chronic non-malignant pain) and settings (i.e., emergency department). Pertinent literature on patient, health care provider, and health care system factors that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in pain treatment are provided.Evidence. A selective literature review was performed by experts in pain. The experts developed abstracts with relevant citations on racial and ethnic disparities within their specific areas of expertise. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. The abstracts were compiled for this manuscript. The draft manuscript was made available to the experts for comment and review prior to submission for publication.Conclusions. Consistent with the Institute of Medicine's report on health care disparities, racial and ethnic disparities in pain perception, assessment, and treatment were found in all settings (i.e., postoperative, emergency room) and across all types of pain (i.e., acute, cancer, chronic nonmalignant, and experimental). The literature suggests that the sources of pain disparities among racial and ethnic minorities are complex, involving patient (e.g., patient/health care provider communication, attitudes), health care provider (e.g., decision making), and health care system (e.g., access to pain medication) factors. There is a need for improved training for health care providers and educational interventions for patients. A comprehensive pain research agenda is necessary to address pain disparities among racial and ethnic minorities.

Recently published articles have described criteria to assess qualitative research in the health field in general, but very few articles have delineated qualitative methods to be used in the development of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). In fact, how PROs are developed with subject input through focus groups and interviews has been given relatively short shrift in the PRO literature when compared to the plethora of quantitative articles on the psychometric properties of PROs. If documented at all, most PRO validation articles give little for the reader to evaluate the content validity of the measures and the credibility and trustworthiness of the methods used to develop them. Increasingly, however, scientists and authorities want to be assured that PRO items and scales have meaning and relevance to subjects. This article was developed by an international, interdisciplinary group of psychologists, psychometricians, regulatory experts, a physician, and a sociologist. It presents rigorous and appropriate qualitative research methods for developing PROs with content validity. The approach described combines an overarching phenomenological theoretical framework with grounded theory data collection and analysis methods to yield PRO items and scales that have content validity.

No abstract

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures must provide evidence that their development followed a rigorous process for ensuring their content validity. To this end, the collection of data is performed through qualitative interviews that allow for the elicitation of in-depth spontaneous reports of the patients’ experiences with their condition and/or its treatment. This paper provides a review of qualitative research applied to PRO measure development. A clear definition of what is a qualitative research interview is given as well as information about the form and content of qualitative interviews required for developing PRO measures. Particular attention is paid to the description of interviewing approaches (e.g., semi-structured and in-depth interviews, individual vs. focus group interviews). Information about how to get prepared for a qualitative interview is provided with the description of how to develop discussion guides for exploratory or cognitive interviews. Interviewing patients to obtain knowledge regarding their illness experience requires interpersonal and communication skills to facilitate patients’ expression. Those skills are described in details, as well as the skills needed to facilitate focus groups and to interview children, adolescents and the elderly. Special attention is also given to quality assurance and interview training. The paper ends on ethical considerations since interviewing for the development of PROs is performed in a context of illness and vulnerability. Therefore, it is all the more important that, in addition to soliciting informed consent, respectful interactions be ensured throughout the interview process.

No abstract