Man Hung1, Judith F Baumhauer2, James W Brodsky3, Christine Cheng1, Scott J Ellis4, Jeremy D Franklin1, Shirley D Hon1, Susan N Ishikawa5, L Daniel Latt6, Phinit Phisitkul7, Charles L Saltzman1, Nelson F SooHoo8, Kenneth J Hunt9,10. 1. 1 University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 2. 2 University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA. 3. 3 Orthopedic Associates of Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. 4 Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA. 5. 5 Campbell Clinic, Cordova, TN, USA. 6. 6 University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 7. 7 University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. 8. 8 University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 9. 9 Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 10. 10 National Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Outcomes Research Network, American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Selecting optimal patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments is critical to improving the quality of health care. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability, responsiveness, and efficiency of three PRO measures: the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure-Activity of Daily Living subscale (FAAM_ADL), the Foot Function Index 5-point verbal rating scale (FFI-5pt), and the PROMIS Physical Function computerized adaptive test (PF CAT). METHODS: Data were aggregated from 10 clinical sites in the AOFAS's National Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Research (OFAR) Network from 311 patients who underwent elective surgery for a disorder of the foot or ankle. Patients were administered the FAAM_ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT at their preoperative visit and at 6 months after surgery. Reliabilities were evaluated using a Rasch model. Responsiveness was calculated using paired samples t test and efficiency was recorded as number of seconds to complete the instrument. RESULTS: Similar reliabilities were found for the three instruments. Item reliabilities for FAAM_ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT were all .99. Pearson reliabilities for FAAM_ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT were .95, .93, and .96, respectively. On average, patients completed the FAAM_ADL in 179 seconds, the FFI-5pt in 194 seconds, and the PF CAT in 44 seconds, ( P < .001). The PF CAT and FAAM_ADL showed significant improvement ( P = .01 and P = .001, respectively) in patients' physical function after treatment; the FFI-5pt did not show improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the PF CAT performed best in terms of reliability, responsiveness, and efficiency in this broad sample of foot and ankle patients. It can be a potential replacement for the conventional PRO measures, but further validation is needed in conjunction with the PROMIS Pain instruments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, prospective comparative outcome study.
BACKGROUND: Selecting optimal patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments is critical to improving the quality of health care. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability, responsiveness, and efficiency of three PRO measures: the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure-Activity of Daily Living subscale (FAAM_ADL), the Foot Function Index 5-point verbal rating scale (FFI-5pt), and the PROMIS Physical Function computerized adaptive test (PF CAT). METHODS: Data were aggregated from 10 clinical sites in the AOFAS's National Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Research (OFAR) Network from 311 patients who underwent elective surgery for a disorder of the foot or ankle. Patients were administered the FAAM_ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT at their preoperative visit and at 6 months after surgery. Reliabilities were evaluated using a Rasch model. Responsiveness was calculated using paired samples t test and efficiency was recorded as number of seconds to complete the instrument. RESULTS: Similar reliabilities were found for the three instruments. Item reliabilities for FAAM_ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT were all .99. Pearson reliabilities for FAAM_ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT were .95, .93, and .96, respectively. On average, patients completed the FAAM_ADL in 179 seconds, the FFI-5pt in 194 seconds, and the PF CAT in 44 seconds, ( P < .001). The PF CAT and FAAM_ADL showed significant improvement ( P = .01 and P = .001, respectively) in patients' physical function after treatment; the FFI-5pt did not show improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the PF CAT performed best in terms of reliability, responsiveness, and efficiency in this broad sample of foot and ankle patients. It can be a potential replacement for the conventional PRO measures, but further validation is needed in conjunction with the PROMIS Pain instruments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, prospective comparative outcome study.
Authors: Richard Kendall; Bill Wagner; Darrel Brodke; Jerry Bounsanga; Maren Voss; Yushan Gu; Ryan Spiker; Brandon Lawrence; Man Hung Journal: Pain Med Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Polake Rawang; Prawit Janwantanakul; Helena Correia; Mark P Jensen; Rotsalai Kanlayanaphotporn Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jason M Guattery; Agnes Z Dardas; Michael Kelly; Aaron Chamberlain; Christopher McAndrew; Ryan P Calfee Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 4.176