Dataset Information

Systematic review and standardised assessment of Chinese cross-cultural adapted hip Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To perform a systemic literature search to identify Chinese cross culturally adapted and new designed Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used for hip assessment, then a standardized evaluation of available instruments in order to provide evidence of high-quality PROMs for clinical use and adoption in future hip registries.

Methods

A Systematic Review of the following databases: PUBMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, CNKI was performed to identify relevant PROMs. Instruments underwent standardized assessment and scoring using the EMPRO tool by two independent reviewers. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).

Results

2188 articles were retrieved, with seven articles fitting the inclusion criteria consisting of six hip PROMs. Five PROMs were cross culturally adapted and one was originally designed in Mandarin Chinese. Total scores (/100) after EMPRO evaluation: Osteoarthritis of Knee and Hip Quality of Life (OAKHQOL): 55; Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS): 52; International Hip Outcome Tool (SC-iHOT-33): 45; Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS): 37; Questionnaire on the Perceptions and Functions of Patients about Total Hip Arthroplasty (QPFPTHA): 36; Oxford Hip Score (OHS): 35. ICC values were 0.73 for the SC-iHOT-33 and ranged between 0.83-0.93 for the other PROMs indicating good to excellent inter-rater agreement.

Conclusion

Among the commonly used hip-specific PROMs found in arthroplasty registries, none of the Chinese adapted versions evaluated by EMPRO is currently rated acceptable for clinical use. Only OAKHQOL and HAGOS reached acceptability threshold. Further research on the attributes of cross-cultural adaptation, interpretability and burden assessment would be helpful.

SUBMITTER: Ngwayi JRM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8452074 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare requires patient feedback to improve outcomes and experience. This study undertook a systematic review of the depth, variability, and digital suitability of current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.MethodsA PROSPERO-registered (registration number CRD42021261707) systematic review was undertaken for all relevant English language articles using PubMed version of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases in June 2021. The search used Boolean operators and wildcards and included the keywords: laparoscopic cholecystectomy AND patient outcome OR patient-reported outcome OR patient-reported outcome measure OR PRO OR PROM. Medical Subjects Heading terms were used to search PubMed and Scopus. Articles published from 1 January 2011 to 2 June 2021 were included.ResultsA total of 4960 individual articles were reviewed in this study, of which 44 were found to evaluate PROMs in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and underwent methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) grading. Twenty-one articles spanning 19 countries and four continents met all inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative data synthesis. There was significant heterogeneity in PROMs identified with eight different comprehensive PROM tools used in the 21 studies. There was wide variation in the time points at which PROMs were recorded. Fourteen of 21 studies recorded PROMs before and after surgery, and 7 of 21 recorded PROMs only after surgery. Follow-up intervals ranged from 3 days to 2 years after surgery.ConclusionsThis study identified that while post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy PROMs are infrequently measured currently, tools are widely available to achieve this in clinical practice. PROMs may not capture all the outcomes but should be incorporated into future cholecystectomy outcome research. The EQ-5D™ (EuroQoL Group, Rotterdam, the Netherlands) provides a simple platform for the modern digital era.

Project description:BackgroundThe number of hip, knee and shoulder arthroplasties continues to rise worldwide. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has launched an initiative (called PaRIS Initiative) for the systematic collection of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing elective hip and knee arthroplasty. The Rizzoli Orthopedic Institute (IOR) was selected as a pilot center for the launch of the Initiative in Italy given that IOR hosts the Registry of Orthopedic Prosthetic Implants (RIPO), a region-wide registry which collects joint implant data from all the hospitals in the Emilia-Romagna Region. In this specific geographic area information related to PROMs after joint replacement is unknown. This paper describes the protocol of a study (PaRIS-IOR) that aims to implement the collection of a set of PROMs within an existing implant registry in Italy. The study will also investigate the temporal trend of PROMs in relation to the type of prosthesis and the type of surgical intervention.MethodsThe PaRIS-IOR study is a prospective, single site, cohort study that consists of the administration of PROMs questionnaires to patients on the list for elective arthroplasty. The questionnaires will be administered to the study population within 30 days before surgery, and then at 6 and 12 months following surgery. The study population will consist of consecutive adult patients undergoing either hip, knee or shoulder arthroplasty. The collected data will be linked with those routinely collected by the RIPO in order to assess the temporal trend of PROMs in relation to the type of prosthesis and the type of surgical intervention.DiscussionThe PaRIS-IOR study could have important implications in targeting the factors influencing functional outcomes and quality of life reported by patients after hip, knee and shoulder arthroplasty, and will also represent the first systematic collection of PROMs related to arthroplasty in Italy.Trial registrationProtocol version (1.0) and trial registration data are available on the platform www.clinicaltrial.gov with the identifier NCT03790267 , first posted on December 31, 2018.

Project description:IntroductionTo evaluate the quality of clinical practice, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important as certain questions could only be answered by the patient himself. PROMs help to get a better understanding what is meaningful to a patient and directly affects daily functioning. To move beyond traditional measures, we are interested in what matters to patients and developed this project. The aim of this article is to provide the protocol for our study collecting PROMs in daily medical practice from patients who undergo knee arthroplasty.Methods and analysisThis study is a single-site, observational, prospective cohort study. We will recruit patients scheduled for a knee arthroplasty in our medical office, situated in a private clinic. After signed informed consent, patients complete self-reported questionnaires before the surgery, after 4 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years and 5 years. We will use the following PROMs: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Forgotten Joint Score, EuroQol five dimensions and satisfaction. Additionally, the surgeon will complete the objective Knee Society Score. Administration of the questionnaires will be electronically or paper-based. We will assess differences between preoperative and postoperative data with paired t-test for continuous variables and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for categorical variables. To assess subgroup differences, we will use unpaired t-test for continuous variables and Mann-Whitney U test for categorical variables. To assess possible presence of bias, we will conduct sensitivity analyses.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been reviewed and approved by the local ethics committee in Basel, Switzerland. Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients. We will disseminate the results of the study through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conference presentations and presentations to relevant stakeholders through appropriate channels.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the acceptability and validity of two patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for adult acne, comparing them to the validated Acne-specific Quality of Life (Acne-QoL) measure.DesignMixed-methods validation study.SettingParticipants were recruited by (1) mail-out through primary care if they had ever consulted for acne and received a prescription for acne treatment within the last 6 months, (2) opportunistically in secondary care and (3) poster advertisement in community venues.Participants221 (204 quantitative and 17 qualitative) participants with acne, aged 18-50 years.Outcome measuresQuantitative sub-study participants completed Acne-QoL, Skindex-16 and Comprehensive Acne Quality of Life Scale (CompAQ) at baseline, 24 hours and 6 weeks. Qualitative sub-study participants took part in cognitive think-aloud interviews, while completing the same measures. Transcribed audio recordings were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsQuantitative analyses suggested high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.74-0.96) and reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient values 0.88-0.97) for both questionnaires. Both scales showed floor effects on some subdomains. Skindex-16 and CompAQ showed good evidence of construct validity when compared with Acne-QoL with Spearman's correlation coefficients 0.54-0.81, and good repeatability over 24 hours.Qualitative data uncovered wide-ranging views regarding usability and acceptability. Interviewees held strong but differing views about layout, question/response wording, redundant/similar questions and guidance notes. Similarly, interviewees differed in perceptions of acceptability of the different scales, particularly on relatability of questions and emotive reactions to scales.ConclusionsAll PROMs performed well in statistical analyses. No PROM showed superior usability and acceptability in the qualitative study. Any PROM should be acceptable for further research in adult acne but researchers should consider the different domains and whether they will measure only facial or facial and trunk acne before making a selection. A new PROM or further evaluation of novel PROMs may be beneficial.

Project description:BackgroundIn this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care. We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion prompts a process of self-reflection and supports patients to raise issues with clinicians and (2) PROMs scores raise clinicians' awareness of patients' problems and prompts discussion and action. We examined how the structure of the PROM and care context shaped the ways in which PROMs support clinician-patient communication and subsequent care processes.ResultsPROMs completion prompts patients to reflect on their health and gives them permission to raise issues with clinicians. However, clinicians found standardised PROMs completion during patient assessments sometimes constrained rather than supported communication. In response, clinicians adapted their use of PROMs to render them compatible with the ongoing management of patient relationships. Individualised PROMs supported dialogue by enabling the patient to tell their story. In oncology, PROMs completion outside of the consultation enabled clinicians to identify problematic symptoms when the PROM acted as a substitute rather than addition to the clinical encounter and when the PROM focused on symptoms and side effects, rather than health related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients did not always feel it was appropriate to discuss emotional, functional or HRQoL issues with doctors and doctors did not perceive this was within their remit.ConclusionsThis paper makes two important contributions to the literature. First, our findings show that PROMs completion is not a neutral act of information retrieval but can change how patients think about their condition. Second, our findings reveal that the ways in which clinicians use PROMs is shaped by their relationships with patients and professional roles and boundaries. Future research should examine how PROMs completion and feedback shapes and is influenced by the process of building relationships with patients, rather than just their impact on information exchange and decision making.