Detailled Information

Name of the Instrument/Tool German Pain Management Questionnaire (GPMQ)
First Description

K. Meng, B. Seekatz, H. Roband, U. Worringen, H. Vogel, H. Faller, Intermediate and long-term effects of a standardized back school for inpatient orthopedic rehabilitation on illness knowledge and self-management behaviors: a randomized controlled trial, Clin. J. Pain (2011) 248–257.

Year 2011
Domains
Concept of constructs Pain, Self-management
Population/Disease Generic
Originally developed for ---
Other rheumatic diseases
where can be applied (only if validated)
Low Back Pain (LBP)
Additional population with no rheumatic diseases No
Language: Originally published in German
Available in Language German
REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION
Author/s K. Meng, B. Seekatz, H. Roband, U. Worringen, H. Vogel, H. Faller,
Title Intermediate and long-term effects of a standardized back school for inpatient orthopedic rehabilitation on illness knowledge and self-management behaviors: a randomized controlled trial, Clin.
Journal J. Pain.
Year 2011
Vol ---
Num ---
Pages 248-257
Country ---
Language ---
Other references of interest
Link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29258726/
Brief Description

This SLR aims to to identify, appraise and synthesise the outcome measures used to assess self-management in patients with chronic pain

Instrument/Tool Translations References
No other References.
DEVELOPER CONTACT INFORMATION
Correspondence to ---
E-Mail ---
Address ---
Website ---
Available ---
Links ---
DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT
Type Of Measure Scale
Brief Description

This scale has two main domains: a) cognitive strategies consisting of three subscales: action-oriented coping, cognitive restructuring and coping competence and b) behavioural strategies consisting of three subscales: mental distraction, counter activities and relaxation.

Number of Items 24
Range ---
Responses options/scale No
Developed for Not specified
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Method of administration ---
Recommendations to score

This scale consists of 24 items and each item can be rated from ‘1 = do not agree at all’ to ‘6 = fully agree’.

Score Interpretation Each of these subscales can be scored between 4 and 24, where a higher score indicates stronger agreement with the respective coping strategy.
Cut-off points ---
Cut-off points applied to ---
Smallest detectable change if described ---
Smallest detectable change applied to ---
Completion time by the patient 0 minutes
Scoring time by the assessor 0 minutes
Training to score Not necessary
Strengths ---
Limitations Not widely used
OTHER COMMENTS
Other Comments ---