Dataset Information

The Association Between Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Scores and Preference for Specific Interventions.

ABSTRACT: To determine whether greater patient-reported symptom intensity and functional limitation influence expressed preferences for discretionary diagnostic and treatment interventions, we studied the association of patient factors and several Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) scores with patient preferences for diagnostic and treatment interventions before and after the visit, a cross-sectional cohort study. One hundred and forty-three adult patients who completed several PROMs were asked their preferences for diagnostic and treatment interventions before and after a visit with an orthopedic surgeon. Patients with better physical function had fewer preferences for specific diagnostic interventions after the visit (P = .02), but PROM scores had no association with preferences for treatment interventions before or after the visit. A greater percentage of patients expressed the preference for no diagnostic or treatment intervention after the visit with a physician than before (diagnostic intervention; 2.1% before vs 30% after the visit; P ? .001 and treatment intervention; 2.1% before vs 17% after the visit; P ? .001). This study suggests that physician expertise may be more reassuring to people with more adaptive mind sets.

SUBMITTER: Boersma EZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7786652 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Association Between Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Scores and Preference for Specific Interventions.

Boersma Emily Z EZ Kortlever Joost T P JTP Loeb Michael D MD McDonald John J Vagner Gregg A GA Ring David D Driscoll Matt M

Journal of patient experience 20200123 6

To determine whether greater patient-reported symptom intensity and functional limitation influence expressed preferences for discretionary diagnostic and treatment interventions, we studied the association of patient factors and several Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) scores with patient preferences for diagnostic and treatment interventions before and after the visit, a cross-sectional cohort study. One hundred and forty-three adult patients who completed several PROMs were asked their ...[more]

PMID: 33457619

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe PRIMUS is a Multiple Sclerosis (MS)-specific suite of outcome measures including assessments of QoL (PRIMUS QoL, scored 0-22) and activity limitations (PRIMUS Activities, scored 0-30). The U-FIS is a measure of fatigue impact (scored 0-66). These measures have been fully validated previously using an MS sample with mixed diagnoses. The aim of the present study was to validate the measures further in a specifically Relapse Remitting MS (RRMS) sample and to provide preliminary evidence of the responder definitions (RD; also known as minimal important difference) for these instruments.MethodsData were derived from a multi-country efficacy trial of MS patients with assessments at baseline and 12 months. Baseline data were used to assess the internal reliability and validity of the measures. Both anchor-based and distribution-based approaches were employed for estimating RD. Anchor-based estimates were based on published RD values for the EQ-5D and were assessed for those improving and deteriorating separately. Distribution-based estimates were based on standard error of measurement (SEM), change score equivalent to 0.30, and change score equivalent to 0.50, effect sizes (ES).ResultsThe sample included 911 RRMS patients (67.3% female, age mean (SD) 36.2 (8.4) years, duration of MS mean (SD) 4.8 (5.2) years). Results showed that the PRIMUS and U-FIS had good internal consistency. Appropriate correlations were observed with comparator instruments and both measures were able to distinguish between participants based on Expanded Disability Status Scale scores and time since diagnosis. The anchor-based and distribution-based RD estimates were: PRIMUS Activities range = 1.2-2.3, PRIMUS QoL range = 1.0-2.2, and U-FIS range = 2.4-7.0.ConclusionsThe results show that the PRIMUS and U-FIS are valid instruments for use with RRMS patients. The analyses provide preliminary information on how to interpret scores on the scales. These data will be useful for assessing treatment efficacy and for powering clinical studies. TRIAL REFERENCE NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00340834.

Project description:BackgroundThe management of diabetes is complex. There is growing recognition of the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as a standardized method of obtaining an outlook on patients' functional status and well-being. However, no systematic reviews have summarized the studies that investigate the measurement properties of diabetes PROMs.ObjectiveOur aims were to conduct a systematic review of studies investigating the measurement properties of diabetes PROMs by evaluating the methodological quality and overall level of evidence of these PROMs and to categorize them based on the outcome measures assessed.MethodsThis study was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Relevant articles were retrieved from the Embase, PubMed, and PsychINFO databases. The PROMs were evaluated with the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) guidelines.ResultsA total of 363 articles evaluating the measurement properties of PROMs for diabetes in the adult population were identified, of which 238 unique PROMs from 248 studies reported in 209 articles were validated in the type 2 diabetes population. PROMs with at least a moderate level of evidence for ≥5 of 9 measurement properties include the Chinese version of the Personal Diabetes Questionnaire (C-PDQ), Diabetes Self-Management Instrument Short Form (DSMI-20), and Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale in Hong Kong primary care patients (C-ITAS-HK), of which the C-PDQ has a "sufficient (+)" rating for >4 measurement properties. A total of 43 PROMs meet the COSMIN guidelines for recommendation for use.ConclusionsThis study identified and synthesized evidence for the measurement properties of 238 unique PROMs for patients with type 2 diabetes and categorized the PROMs according to their outcome measures. These findings may assist clinicians and researchers in selecting appropriate high-quality PROMs for clinical practice and research.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020180978; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020180978.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate and compare the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computerized adaptive test and PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) instruments versus legacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome at 1-year follow-up.MethodsPatients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome without concomitant procedures performed by a single surgeon between August 2018 and January 2019 were identified. The PROMIS PF score, PROMIS PI score, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living Subscale (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) pain score were obtained preoperatively and at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Bivariate correlation analyses between PROMIS and legacy PROMs were performed. The floor and ceiling effects, responsiveness, and relative efficiency (RE) of each PROM were calculated.ResultsThis study included 124 patients with an average age of 32.7 ± 12.3 years. The PROMIS PF score showed very good correlations with the HOS-ADL (r = 0.73, P < .001) and mHHS (r = 0.70, P < .001) and good correlations with the HOS-SS (r = 0.62, P < .001), iHOT-12 score (r = 0.62, P < .001), and VAS pain score (r = -0.64, P < .001). The PROMIS PI score showed very good inverse correlations with the HOS-ADL (r = -0.72, P < .001) and mHHS (r = -0.79, P < .001) and good correlations with the HOS-SS (r = -0.64, P < .001), iHOT-12 score (r = -0.65, P < .001), and VAS pain score (r = 0.65, P < .001). No floor effect was observed for any measure. Ceiling effects were not observed in the PROMIS PROMs but were detected for the HOS-ADL (16.1%) and mHHS (19.3%). The effect size was large for all outcomes: iHOT-12 score, d = 1.77; HOS-ADL, d = 1.37; HOS-SS, d = 1.45; PROMIS PI score, d = 1.05; and PROMIS PF score, d = 1.01. The iHOT-12 score was more responsive than the PROMIS PI score (RE = 1.69), PROMIS PF score (RE = 1.75), HOS-ADL (RE = 1.29), and HOS-SS (RE = 1.22).ConclusionsAt 1-year follow-up, PROMIS PROMs displayed very good correlations with legacy PROMs. However, PROMIS PROMs had lower effect sizes and were not as responsive as legacy PROMs.Level of evidenceLevel II, development of diagnostic criteria on the basis of consecutive patients.

Project description:PurposeTo analyze time to completion of preoperative legacy patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and more recent computer adaptive Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaires in patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement syndrome undergoing primary hip arthroscopy.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing hip arthroscopy by a single fellowship-trained hip arthroscopist. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing primary arthroscopic hip surgery and completion of at least 1 legacy PRO or PROMIS questionnaire at the preoperative time point. Exclusion criteria were history of contralateral or ipsilateral hip surgery, non-English-speaking patients, patients who completed PROs by phone or by paper form, and patients who did not complete preoperative PROs. Legacy PROs included modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and Hip Pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS-Pain). PROMIS PROs included Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI), and Depression (PROMIS-D). Only preoperative PROs were included in the analysis. Completion time was calculated using the questionnaire start and stop time reported by the survey collecting software. The median and interquartile range of each PRO were reported for analysis of central tendency and statistical dispersion, respectively.ResultsA total of 1,901 patients and 269 patients were included in the legacy and PROMIS groups, respectively. The median time required for completion of each PRO in (minutes: seconds) format was as follows: mHHS (1:29), HOS (3:58), iHOT (2:11), VAS-Pain (0:32), PROMIS-PF (0:46), PROMIS-PI (0:37), and PROMIS-D (0:43). The interquartile range of the middle 50% of respondents was as follows; mHHS (0:58), HOS (2:46), iHOT (1:22), VAS-Pain (0:28), PROMIS-PI (0:19), PROMIS-D (0:29), and PROMIS-PF (0:20).ConclusionsThis study supports that preoperative PROMIS forms require less time to complete than preoperative legacy PROs and are not significantly influenced by age, race, or workers compensation status.Level of evidenceLevel IV, case series.

Project description:Various cranioplasty techniques exist for the reconstruction of cranial bone defects. Patient-specific implants can be produced in-house using a recently developed 3D printer-assisted cranioplasty technique. However, the resulting cosmetic outcomes from the patient's perspective are underreported. With our case series, we aim to present the clinical outcome, morbidity rate, patient-reported cosmetic results, and cost-effectiveness of patient-specific3D printer-assisted cranioplasty technique. This is a consecutive retrospective case series of adult patients undergoing cranioplasty using the patient-specific 3D printer-assisted technique. As primary endpoint, the functional outcome based on modified Rankin scale (mRS) at discharge and follow-up was assessed. A prospective telephone survey was conducted to collect and provide patient-reported outcomes. Thirty-one patients underwent patient-specific 3D printer-assisted cranioplasty, mostly to reconstruct frontotemporoparietal (61.3%) and frontotemporal defects with orbital involvement (19.4%). Good functional outcome (mRS ≤ 2) at discharge and during the last follow-up was achieved in 54.8% (n = 17) and 58.1% (n = 18) patients. Overall, the rate of clinically relevant surgery-related complications was 35.5% (n = 11). Postoperative epidural hematoma/collection (16.1%) and infections (12.9%) were the most frequent complications. Permanent morbidity occurred in one patient (3.2%) with postoperative acute ipsilateral vision loss after frontotemporal cranioplasty with orbital involvement. No surgery-related mortality occurred. The mean patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction score was 7.8 ± 1.5, with 80% of patients reporting satisfying or very satisfying cosmetic results. No significant differences were seen between the different defect localization regarding the cosmetic outcome. The mean manufacturing costs of a patient-specific 3D printer-assisted implant ranged from 748 to 1129 USD. Based on our case series, patient-specific 3D printer-assisted cranioplasty is cost-effective and leads to satisfying cosmetic results, especially in large defects and/or defects with complex geometry.

Project description:BackgroundMedication adherence is essential for improving the health outcomes of patients. Various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed to measure medication adherence in patients. However, no study has summarized the psychometric properties of these PROMs to guide selection for use in clinical practice or research.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the quality of the PROMs used to measure medication adherence.MethodsThis study was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Relevant articles were retrieved from the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases. The PROMs were then evaluated based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.ResultsA total of 121 unique medication adherence PROMs from 214 studies were identified. Hypotheses testing for construct validity and internal consistency were the most frequently assessed measurement properties. PROMs with at least a moderate level of evidence for ≥5 measurement properties include the Adherence Starts with Knowledge 20, Compliance Questionnaire-Rheumatology, General Medication Adherence Scale, Hill-Bone Scale, Immunosuppressant Therapy Barrier Scale, Medication Adherence Reasons Scale (MAR-Scale) revised, 5-item Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS-5), 9-item MARS (MARS-9), 4-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-4), 8-item MMAS (MMAS-8), Self-efficacy for Appropriate Medication Adherence Scale, Satisfaction with Iron Chelation Therapy, Test of Adherence to Inhalers, and questionnaire by Voils. The MAR-Scale revised, MMAS-4, and MMAS-8 have been administered electronically.ConclusionsThis study identified 121 PROMs for medication adherence and provided synthesized evidence for the measurement properties of these PROMs. The findings from this study may assist clinicians and researchers in selecting suitable PROMs to assess medication adherence.

Project description:ContextThe Leapfrog Hospital Survey allows hospitals to self-report the steps they have taken toward implementing the Safe Practices for Better Healthcare endorsed by the National Quality Forum. The Leapfrog Group currently ranks hospital performance on the safe practices initiative by quartiles and presents this information to the public on its Web site. It is unknown how well a hospital's resulting Safe Practices Score (SPS) correlates with outcomes such as inpatient mortality.ObjectiveTo determine the relationship between hospitals' SPSs and risk-adjusted inpatient mortality rates.Design, setting, and participantsObservational analysis of discharge data for all urban US hospitals completing the 2006 safe practices initiative and identifiable in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Leapfrog provided an SPS for each hospital as well as 3 alternative scores based on shorter versions of the original survey. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to determine the relationship between quartiles of SPS and risk-adjusted inpatient mortality, after adjusting for hospital discharge volume and teaching status. Subgroup analyses were performed using data from patients older than 65 years and patients with 5% or greater expected mortality risk.Main outcome measuresInpatient risk-adjusted mortality by quartiles of survey score.ResultsOf 1075 hospitals completing the 2006 Safe Practices Survey, 155 (14%) were identifiable in the National Inpatient Sample (1,772,064 discharges). Raw observed mortality in the primary sample was 2.09%. Fully adjusted mortality rates by quartile of SPS, from lowest to highest, were 1.97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.78%-2.18%), 2.04% (95% CI, 1.84%-2.25%), 1.96% (95% CI, 1.77%-2.16%), and 2.00% (95% CI, 1.80%-2.22%) (P = .99 for linear trend). Results were similar in the subgroup analyses. None of the 3 alternative survey scores was associated with risk-adjusted inpatient mortality, although P values for linear trends were lower (.80, .20, and .11).ConclusionIn this sample of hospitals that completed the 2006 Safe Practices Survey, survey scores were not significantly associated with risk-adjusted inpatient mortality.

Project description:PurposeTo quantify healing rates and patient-reported outcome scores following repair of radial meniscus tears.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases were searched according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria included: human subjects with meniscal tears, full-text English language, average follow-up of at 1 year, and publication after the 2000. Exclusion criteria included technical, biomechanical, and cadaveric studies. Study quality was assessed using Coleman Methodology Scores and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria.ResultsTwelve studies reported on the repair of 243 radial tears in 241 patients. The mean Modified Coleman Methodology Score was 46.8, range 26-60, with a mean level of evidence of 3.5. Arthroscopic techniques were used in all studies, with 1 study using an arthroscopic-assisted 2-tunnel trans-tibial pullout technique. The mean patient age was 32 years (11-71). The mean follow-up was 35 months (12 to 75.6). The average time to surgery was 10.9 months (0.5-22.4). Eight of the 12 studies reported concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, with 64% having concomitant ACL injury. The most common outcome measure was the Lysholm score, which improved from 47-68.9 preoperatively to 86.4-95.6 postoperatively. Tegner Activity Scale improved from 2.5-3.1 preoperatively to 4.7-6.7 postoperatively. Healing rates were reported via magnetic resonance imaging and second-look arthroscopy. Second-look arthroscopy was performed for a variety of indications, including removal of screw, washers or plates, dissatisfaction with original procedure, partial healing found on magnetic resonance imaging, or desire of the patient to know the true healing status before return to sport. Of those assessed, 62.0% had complete healing, 30.0% partial healing, and 8.0% failure to heal.ConclusionsPatient-reported outcomes of radial meniscus repair with and without ACL reconstruction are encouraging, with high patient-reported outcomes reported at final follow-up when compared with preoperative scores. Among all meniscus repairs assessed for healing, the majority demonstrated at least some healing with an overall low rate of failure.Level of evidenceIV; systematic review of level III-IV studies.

Dataset Information

The Association Between Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Scores and Preference for Specific Interventions.

Publications

The Association Between Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Scores and Preference for Specific Interventions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets