Literature DB >> 26472587

Are patient-reported outcome measures in orthopaedics easily read by patients?

Ibraheim El-Daly1, Hajir Ibraheim, Karthig Rajakulendran, Paul Culpan, Peter Bates.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used by healthcare providers as means of assessing health-related quality of life and function at any given time. The complexity of PROMs can differ and when combined with varying degrees of adult literacy, error can be introduced if patients fail to understand questions. With an average adult literacy level of 11-year-old students in the United Kingdom, it is unclear to what degree PROMs can be read and understood by most patients (readability); to our knowledge, this has not been evaluated. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We wished to determine the readability of commonly used PROMs in orthopaedic surgery, as assessed by a validated tool that measures the complexity of the language in these surveys.
METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE search to identify the most-commonly reported PROMs in orthopaedic research. One hundred twenty-one PROMs were identified and reviewed by 19 attending orthopaedic surgeons at our institution. Fifty-nine were selected as the most commonly used in our department. Of these, 52 (78%) were disease specific and included: 12 (20%) knee, 10 (17%) shoulder, seven (12%) spine, six (10%) hip, five (8%) foot and ankle, four (7%) elbow, three (5%) pelvis, three (5%) hand and wrist, and two (3%) lower limb. The remaining seven (12%) PROMs were general health questionnaires. The Flesch Reading Ease Score is a validated readability tool measuring average sentence length and syllables per word. It is expressed on a scale from 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating easier reading. We extracted the text from each PROM and inserted it in the same online Flesch Reading Ease Score calculator to generate a score.
RESULTS: The mean readability score was 55 (range, 0-93), corresponding to text best understood by 16- to 18-year-old students (11th-12th grades). Twenty-nine PROMs (49%) scored less than 60, classifying them as at least fairly difficult to read. Eight (14%) scored less than 30, best understood by university graduates. Only seven of 59 PROMs analyzed scored greater than 79, corresponding to text that can be understood by the average UK adult.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of PROMs analyzed are written at a level that is incomprehensible to the average UK adult. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This issue needs to be addressed if we are to continue basing our research conclusions on outcome scores. The information obtained is useful for patients to understand their musculoskeletal health, governmental agencies allocating healthcare resources, provision of management guidelines, and as a link to other data sets, such as hospital episodes statistics. Accurate and reliable data can be obtained only if patients who complete these evaluations are able to read and understand the questions asked.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26472587      PMCID: PMC4686523          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4595-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  83 in total

1.  Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences.

Authors:  Nikolaos A Patsopoulos; Apostolos A Analatos; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-05-18       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  A new readability yardstick.

Authors:  R FLESCH
Journal:  J Appl Psychol       Date:  1948-06

3.  The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network.

Authors:  J M Binkley; P W Stratford; S A Lott; D L Riddle
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1999-04

4.  Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries.

Authors:  Y Tegner; J Lysholm
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons lower limb outcomes assessment instruments. Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change.

Authors:  Norman A Johanson; Matthew H Liang; Lawren Daltroy; Sally Rudicel; John Richmond
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Shame and health literacy: the unspoken connection.

Authors:  N S Parikh; R M Parker; J R Nurss; D W Baker; M V Williams
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  1996-01

7.  Development and validation of the quality of life outcome measure (questionnaire) for chronic anterior cruciate ligament deficiency.

Authors:  N Mohtadi
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1998 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.202

8.  The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Measurement properties.

Authors:  J A Kopec; J M Esdaile; M Abrahamowicz; L Abenhaim; S Wood-Dauphinee; D L Lamping; J I Williams
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. An extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.

Authors:  Maria Klässbo; Eva Larsson; Eva Mannevik
Journal:  Scand J Rheumatol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 3.641

10.  The development of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. An assessment of the impact of spinal pain on behavior.

Authors:  G F Lawlis; R Cuencas; D Selby; C E McCoy
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  13 in total

1.  Editor's Spotlight/Take 5: Readability of Orthopaedic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Is There a Fundamental Failure to Communicate?

Authors:  M Daniel Wongworawat
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  State-of-the-art: outcome assessment in adult spinal deformity.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Gum; Leah Y Carreon; Steven D Glassman
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2020-10-09

3.  Informed consent and the readability of the written consent form.

Authors:  N Sivanadarajah; I El-Daly; G Mamarelis; M Z Sohail; P Bates
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2017-10-19       Impact factor: 1.891

4.  Readability of Orthopaedic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Is There a Fundamental Failure to Communicate?

Authors:  Jorge L Perez; Zachary A Mosher; Shawna L Watson; Evan D Sheppard; Eugene W Brabston; Gerald McGwin; Brent A Ponce
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-04-03       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  What Do Orthopaedists Believe is Needed for Incorporating Patient-reported Outcome Measures into Clinical Care? A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Robin R Whitebird; Leif I Solberg; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Christine K Norton; Ella A Chrenka; Marc Swiontkowski; Megan Reams; Elizabeth S Grossman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 4.755

6.  Outcome Metrics in the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Kevin Mertz; Sarah E Lindsay; Arden Morris; Robin N Kamal
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2020-10-19

7.  Electronic capture of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in an elective orthopaedic setting: a retrospective cohort analysis.

Authors:  Karan Malhotra; Olatunbosun Buraimoh; James Thornton; Nicholas Cullen; Dishan Singh; Andrew J Goldberg
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  The Qualification of Outcome after Cervical Spine Surgery by Patients Compared to the Neck Disability Index.

Authors:  Roland Donk; Andre Verbeek; Wim Verhagen; Hans Groenewoud; Allard Hosman; Ronald Bartels
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Development and assessment of a verbal response scale for the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in a low-literacy, non-western population.

Authors:  Anupa Pathak; Saurab Sharma; Allen W Heinemann; Paul W Stratford; Daniel Cury Ribeiro; J Haxby Abbott
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 3.440

10.  Patient-reported outcome measures in ophthalmology: too difficult to read?

Authors:  Deanna J Taylor; Lee Jones; Laura Edwards; David P Crabb
Journal:  BMJ Open Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-06-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.