• Afton L Hassett, Jennifer Pierce, Jenna Goesling, Laura Fritsch, Rishi R Bakshi, David J Kohns, and Chad M Brummett.
• Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA afton@med.umich.edu.
• Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019 Dec 18.

BackgroundThe Michigan Body Map (MBM) was developed to assess pain location in a reliable and valid manner; however, electronic formats have not been validated. This study had two aims: (1) initial validation of the electronic form of the MBM (eMBM) and (2) preliminary test of assessing pain severity within body zones.MethodsFor the first aim, 68 participants with chronic pain completed paper and electronic forms of the MBM, then underwent scripted interviews to assess preferences among body maps and verbal confirmation of pain locations. For the second aim, a subset of the participants (n=40) completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity subscale, as well as the eMBM again and endorsed pain severity using additional screens showing body zones that contained areas in which pain was endorsed.ResultsThere were few discrepancies between MBM, eMBM and verbal report (1.9% and 1.6%, respectively), and no difference between forms in perceived ability to indicate areas of pain or ease of completion. Patients accurately indicated their bodily pain on both maps, with 84% and 87% reporting one or no errors on MBM and eMBM, respectively. Participants also reported no preference for which version best-depicted areas of pain or best distinguished left from right. Lastly, the most preferred measure was eMBM with pain severity zones, followed by eMBM without zones, followed by the BPI pain severity subscale.ConclusionsThese data support the validity of the eMBM for patients with chronic pain. Further, an expanded form of the eMBM that assesses pain severity was preferred by most participants.© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

3 keywords...

hide…