Advertisement

Indian Journal of Surgery

, Volume 80, Issue 6, pp 541–544 | Cite as

The Appropriateness of an Improved Diary for the Assessment of Pre-Menstrual Mastalgia

  • Emma SharlandEmail author
  • Jenny Burbage
  • Joanna Wakefield-Scurr
Original Article

Abstract

Current mastalgia assessment diaries are effective in reporting severity and frequency; however, literature suggests that timing and location should also be considered when assessing mastalgia alongside severity and frequency. This study aimed to assess validity, reliability, acceptability and minimal detectable change (MDC) of an improved mastalgia diary. Twenty premenopausal females who self-reported pre-menstrual mastalgia completed the diary once a day using paper, email or mobile formats, over one menstrual cycle. Predictive validity was assessed comparing pain pre- and post-menstruation. Test-retest and internal consistency established reliability. Acceptability was assessed using evaluation questions. MDC was calculated using a previously established method using the SEM to a 95% confidence interval. Results showed pre-menstrual mastalgia was significantly higher than post-menstrual, demonstrating diary validity. Reliability tests determined high test-retest reliability (ICC > 0.90) and internal consistency (α = 0.89). The diary was acceptable for >90% of participants. MDC-determined change of 1 on each question would be greater than measurement error and therefore representing ‘real’ change. This improved mastalgia diary is a more comprehensive, valid, reliable and acceptable tool for assessing mastalgia.

Keywords

Mastalgia Diary Reliability Validity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the University of Portsmouth for funding this research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding Source

University of Portsmouth.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Tavaf-Motamen H, Ader D, Browne MW, Shriver CD (1998) Clinical evaluation of mastalgia. Arch Surg 133(2):211–214 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9484737
  2. 2.
    Freer CB (1980) Health diaries: a method of collecting health information. J R Coll Gen Pract 30(214):279–282 Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2159533&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
  3. 3.
    Mansel RE (1994) ABC of breast diseases. Breast Pain Br Med J 309(6958):866–868Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pearlman MD, Griffin JL (2010) Benign breast disease. Obstet Gynecol 116(3):747–758 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20733462
  5. 5.
    Gautam S, Srivastava A, Kataria K, Dhar A, Ranjan P, Kumar J (2016) New breast pain chart for objective record of mastalgia. Indian J Surg:1–4 Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12262-016-1492-z
  6. 6.
    Litwin MS (1995) How to measure survey reliability and validity. SAGE Publications Ltd, CaliforniaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Palermo TM, Valenzuela D, Stork PP (2004) A randomized trial of electronic versus paper pain diaries in children: impact on compliance, accuracy, and acceptability. Pain 107(3):213–219 Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304395903004135
  8. 8.
    De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM (2006) Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vincent WJ (1995) Statistics in kinesiology. Champaign Ill: Human KineticsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kumar S, Rai R, Agarwal GG, Dwivedi V, Kumar S, Das V (2013) A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ormeloxifene in breast pain and nodularity. Natl Med J India 26(2):69–74Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farrar JT, Young JP, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM (2001) Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 94(2):149–158 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11690728
  12. 12.
    Jensen MP, Turner LR, Turner JA, Romano JM (1996) The use of multiple-item scales for pain intensity measurement in chronic pain patients. Pain 67(1):35–40 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8895229
  13. 13.
    Melzack R (2005) The McGill pain questionnaire. Anesthesiology 103(1):199–202Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freeman EW, DeRubeis RJ, Rickels K (1996) Reliability and validity of a daily diary for premenstrual syndrome. Psychiatry Res 65(2):97–106 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9122290
  15. 15.
    Korakakis V, Sideris V, Giakas G (2014) Sitting bodily configuration: a study investigating the intra-tester reliability of positioning subjects into a predetermined sitting posture. Man Ther Elsevier ltd 19(3):197–202. Available from. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2014.01.001
  16. 16.
    DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P, Ernst DM, Hayden SJ, Lazzara DJ et al (2007) A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh 39(2):155–164 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17535316
  17. 17.
    Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR (2008) Ecological Momentary Assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 4(1):1–32 Available from: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415

Copyright information

© Association of Surgeons of India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Group in Breast Health, Department of Sport and Exercise ScienceUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations