Dataset Information

Do Patient- and Parent-reported Outcomes Measures for Children With Congenital Hand Differences Capture WHO-ICF Domains?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient- and parent-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to evaluate the effectiveness of surgery for congenital hand differences (CHDs). Knowledge of an existing outcome measure's ability to assess self-reported health, including psychosocial aspects, can inform the future development and application of PROMs for CHD. However, the extent to which measures used among children with CHD align with common, accepted metrics of self-reported disability remains unexplored.

Questions/purposes

We reviewed studies that used PROMs to evaluate surgery for CHD to determine (1) the number of World Health Organization-International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (WHO-ICF) domains covered by existing PROMs; (2) the proportion of studies that used PROMs specifically validated among children with CHD; and (3) the proportion of PROMs that targets patients and/or parents.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive review of the literature through a bibliographic search of MEDLINE®, PubMed, and EMBASE from January 1966 to December 2014 to identify articles related to patient outcomes and surgery for CHD. We evaluated the 42 studies that used PROMs to identify the number and type of WHO-ICF domains captured by existing PROMs for CHD and the proportion of studies that use PROMs validated for use among children with CHD. The most common instruments used to measure patient- and parent-reported outcomes after reconstruction for CHD included the Prosthetic Upper Extremity Functional Index (PUFI), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, Childhood Experience Questionnaire, and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory.

Results

Current PROMs that have been used for CHD covered a mean of 1.3 WHO-ICF domains (SD ± 1.3). Only the Child Behavior Checklist and the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale captured all ICF domains (body functions and structures, activity, participation, and environmental factors). The PUFI, the only PROM validated specifically for children with congenital longitudinal and transverse deficiency, was used in only four of 42 studies. Only 13 of the 42 studies assessed patient-reported outcomes, whereas five assessed both patient- and parent-reported outcomes.

Conclusions

The PROMs used to assess patients after CHD surgery do not evaluate all WHO-ICF domains (ie, body structure, body function, environmental factors, and activity and participation) and generally are not validated for children with CHD. Given the psychological and sociological aspects of CHD illness, a PROM that encompasses all components of the biopsychosocial model of illness and validated in children with CHD is desirable.

Level of evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.

SUBMITTER: Adkinson JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4586230 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do Patient- and Parent-reported Outcomes Measures for Children With Congenital Hand Differences Capture WHO-ICF Domains?

Adkinson Joshua M JM Bickham Rebecca S RS Chung Kevin C KC Waljee Jennifer F JF

Clinical orthopaedics and related research 20151101 11

<h4>Background</h4>Patient- and parent-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to evaluate the effectiveness of surgery for congenital hand differences (CHDs). Knowledge of an existing outcome measure's ability to assess self-reported health, including psychosocial aspects, can inform the future development and application of PROMs for CHD. However, the extent to which measures used among children with CHD align with common, accepted metrics of self-reported disability remains un ...[more]

PMID: 26286444

Similar Datasets

Project description:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide an important complement to physician-assessed clinical outcome measures in dermatologic diseases such as atopic dermatitis (AD) and chronic hand eczema (CHE). AD and CHE are chronic and relapsing inflammatory skin conditions that often co-occur. While both diseases result in various signs and symptoms that are burdensome and can negatively affect patients' lives, there may be distinct differences in the signs, symptoms, burden, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) impact of these diseases. The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate PROMs used in studies of AD and CHE. The aim was to explore the assessment of key symptoms and impacts, and identify any gaps in the measures in use. A structured review of the PubMed database was conducted to identify PROMs used or developed for use in AD or CHE. The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), the Pruritus/Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), and the Quality of Life in Hand Eczema Questionnaire (QOLHEQ) were identified and reviewed in detail. With these measures, the AD and CHE symptoms and impacts most commonly evaluated in the literature include dermatology-related HRQOL in the domains of symptoms and feelings, daily activities, leisure, work and school, personal relationships, and adverse effects; pruritus; sleep disturbance; AD-specific symptoms (dryness, itching, flaking, cracking, bleeding, and weeping/oozing); and CHE-specific symptoms (pain, itch, fissuring, redness, bleeding, and dryness). A review of regulatory labels of drugs approved for AD by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) found that, among the four measures reviewed, the Pruritus NRS was included in the FDA and EMA labels for dupilumab, the DLQI was included in the EMA labels for dupilumab and tacrolimus, and the POEM was included in the EMA label for dupilumab. Key symptoms of AD (e.g. itching, flaking, cracking) and CHE (e.g. pain, itching, fissuring) are increasingly being assessed with PROMs; however, primary endpoints in clinical trials are often based on clinician-reported outcome measures. As therapeutic strategies in dermatology are targeted at specific dermatologic symptoms and diseases affecting specific sites (e.g. CHE), future research should explore patients' experiences with these symptoms and sites and the changes with treatment that are most meaningful to them.

Project description:Importance:Despite the global delivery rate being approximately 259 deliveries per minute in 2018, postpartum recovery remains poorly defined. Objectives:To identify validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess outpatient and inpatient postpartum recovery, evaluate frequency of PROM use, report the proportion of identified PROMs used within each recovery domain, report the number of published studies within each recovery domain, summarize descriptive data (country of origin, year of study, and journal specialty) for published studies using PROMs to evaluate postpartum recovery, and report PROMs used to evaluate global postpartum recovery. Evidence Review:This study followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A literature search of 4 databases (MEDLINE through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL) was performed on July 1, 2019, to identify PROMs used to evaluate 12 author-defined domains of postpartum recovery. All psychometrically evaluated PROMs used to evaluate inpatient or outpatient postpartum recovery after all delivery modes were included. Findings:From 8008 screened titles and abstracts, 573 studies (515 outpatient and 58 inpatient) were identified in this review. A total of 201 PROMs were used to assess recovery for outpatient studies and 73 PROMs were used to assess recovery for inpatient studies. The top 5 domains (with highest to lowest numbers of PROMs) used to assess outpatient recovery were psychosocial distress (77 PROMs), surgical complications (26 PROMs), psychosocial support (27 PROMs), motherhood experience (16 PROMs), and sexual function (13 PROMs). Among inpatient studies, the top 5 domains were psychosocial distress (32 PROMs), motherhood experience (7 PROMs), psychosocial support (5 PROMs), fatigue (5 PROMs), and cognition (3 PROMs). The 3 most frequently used PROMs were the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (267 studies), Short-Form 36 Health Questionnaire (global recovery assessment; 40 studies), and Female Sexual Function Index (35 studies). A total of 24 global recovery PROMs were identified among all included studies. Most studies were undertaken in the United States within the last decade and were published in psychiatry and obstetrics and gynecology journals. Conclusions and Relevance:Most PROMs identified in this review evaluated a single domain of recovery. Future research should focus on determining the psychometric properties of individual and global recovery PROMs identified in this review to provide recommendations regarding optimum measures of postpartum recovery.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in clinical quality registries, for people with cutaneous melanoma, to inform a new Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry; and describe opportunities and challenges of routine PROM/PREM collection, especially in primary care.DesignSystematic review.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWhich PROMs and PREMs are used in clinical quality registries for people with cutaneous melanoma, how they are collected, frequency of collection, participant recruitment methods and funding models for each registry.Results1134 studies were identified from MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects databases and TUFTS Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, alongside grey literature, from database inception to 5th February 2020. Following screening, 14 studies were included, identifying four relevant registries: Dutch Melanoma Registry, Adelphi Real-World Disease-Specific Programme (Melanoma), Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship Registry, and Cancer Experience Registry. These used seven PROMs: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Functional Assessment of Cancer-General (FACT-G) and FACT-Melanoma (FACT-M), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Fatigue Assessment Scale Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System-29 and one PREM; EORTC QLQ-Information Module 26. PROMs/PREMs in registries were reported to improve transparency of care; facilitate clinical auditing for quality assessment; enable cost-effectiveness analyses and create large-scale research platforms. Challenges included resource burden for data entry and potential collection bias toward younger, more affluent respondents. Feedback from patients with melanoma highlighted the relevance of PROMs/PREMs in assessing patient outcomes and patient experiences.ConclusionsClinical registries indicate PROMs/PREMs for melanoma care can be incorporated and address important gaps, however cost and collection bias may limit generalisability.Prospero registration numberCRD42018086737.

Dataset Information

Do Patient- and Parent-reported Outcomes Measures for Children With Congenital Hand Differences Capture WHO-ICF Domains?

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of evidence

Publications

Do Patient- and Parent-reported Outcomes Measures for Children With Congenital Hand Differences Capture WHO-ICF Domains?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets