The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) is a short, self-administered questionnaire that was developed for use in cancer patients. While most empirical research with the BPI has been in pain of that etiology, the questionnaire is increasingly evident in published studies of patients with non-cancer pain. The current research addresses the need for formal evaluation of the reliability and validity of the BPI for use in non-cancer pain patients. Approximately 250 patients with arthritis or low back pain (LBP) self-administered a number of generic and condition-specific health status measures (including the BPI) in the clinic of their primary care provider at 2 time points: the initial clinic visit and the first visit following treatment. The reliability of BPI data collected from non-cancer pain patients was comparable to that reported in the literature for cancer patients and sufficient for group-level analyses (coefficient alphas were greater than 0.70). The factor structure of the BPI was replicated in this sample and the relationship of the BPI to generic measures of pain was strong. The BPI exhibited similar relationships to general and condition-specific measures of health as did a generic pain scale (SF-36 Bodily Pain). Finally, the BPI discriminated among levels of condition severity and was sensitive to change in condition over time in arthritis and LBP patients. Results support the validity of the BPI as a measure of pain in patients without cancer and, in particular, as a measure of pain for arthritis and LBP patients.

Data reported during the past 5 years indicate that rates of survival have increased among infants born at the borderline of viability, but less is known about how increased rates of survival among these infants relate to early childhood neurodevelopmental outcomes. We compared survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes among infants born at 22 to 24 weeks of gestation, as assessed at 18 to 22 months of corrected age, across three consecutive birth-year epochs (2000–2003 [epoch 1], 2004–2007 [epoch 2], and 2008–2011 [epoch 3]). The infants were born at 11 centers that participated in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. The primary outcome measure was a three-level outcome — survival without neurodevelopmental impairment, survival with neurodevelopmental impairment, or death. After accounting for differences in infant characteristics, including birth center, we used multinomial generalized logit models to compare the relative risk of survival without neurodevelopmental impairment, survival with neurodevelopmental impairment, and death. Data on the primary outcome were available for 4274 of 4458 infants (96%) born at the 11 centers. The percentage of infants who survived increased from 30% (424 of 1391 infants) in epoch 1 to 36% (487 of 1348 infants) in epoch 3 (P<0.001). The percentage of infants who survived without neurodevelopmental impairment increased from 16% (217 of 1391) in epoch 1 to 20% (276 of 1348) in epoch 3 (P=0.001), whereas the percentage of infants who survived with neurodevelopmental impairment did not change significantly (15% [207 of 1391] in epoch 1 and 16% [211 of 1348] in epoch 3, P=0.29). After adjustment for changes in the baseline characteristics of the infants over time, both the rate of survival with neurodevelopmental impairment (as compared with death) and the rate of survival without neurodevelopmental impairment (as compared with death) increased over time (adjusted relative risks, 1.27 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.01 to 1.59] and 1.59 [95% CI, 1.28 to 1.99], respectively). The rate of survival without neurodevelopmental impairment increased between 2000 and 2011 in this large cohort of periviable infants. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00063063 and NCT00009633.)