K L Haywood1, J Brett2, E Tutton3,4, S Staniszewska3. 1. Royal College of Nursing Research Institute, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, Warwick University, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. k.l.haywood@warwick.ac.uk. 2. AHPD, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Jack Straw's Lane, Marston, Oxford, OX3 OFL, UK. 3. Royal College of Nursing Research Institute, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, Warwick University, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. 4. Trauma Research, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Kadoorie Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Hip fracture is the most common serious injury of older people, often resulting in reduced mobility and loss of independence. However, guidance for the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) does not exist: we describe the first review to apply internationally endorsed criteria in support of PROM quality and acceptability in this group, and make recommendations for future applications. METHODS: Systematic literature searches of major databases (1980-2015) to identify published evidence of the application and quality of clearly defined measures. Evidence of measurement and practical properties, and the extent of active patient involvement, was sought. Study and PROM quality was assessed against recommended criteria. RESULTS: Seventy-one articles relating to 28 PROMs (Generic n = 12; Specific n = 16) were included. The SF-36 (v1) and EuroQoL EQ-5D 3L were the most widely evaluated measures with acceptable evidence of measurement properties, but limited evaluations of practical properties or relevance to this group. Evidence was mostly limited for the remaining measures. Hypothesized associations between variables were infrequently evaluated. Evidence of data quality, test-retest reliability, responsiveness, interpretation, acceptability and feasibility was also limited. Active patient involvement in PROM development or evaluation was not reported. There was limited evaluation of proxy completions. CONCLUSIONS: The paucity of robust evaluations is disappointing and prevents clear recommendations for PROM-based assessment. Further research must urgently seek to identify which outcomes really matter to this group. Future PROM selection must be underpinned by research which focuses on methodological quality, including issues of acceptability, relevance, feasibility of application, and proxy completion, whilst seeking to actively incorporate the perspective of patients and their advocates.
PURPOSE:Hip fracture is the most common serious injury of older people, often resulting in reduced mobility and loss of independence. However, guidance for the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) does not exist: we describe the first review to apply internationally endorsed criteria in support of PROM quality and acceptability in this group, and make recommendations for future applications. METHODS: Systematic literature searches of major databases (1980-2015) to identify published evidence of the application and quality of clearly defined measures. Evidence of measurement and practical properties, and the extent of active patient involvement, was sought. Study and PROM quality was assessed against recommended criteria. RESULTS: Seventy-one articles relating to 28 PROMs (Generic n = 12; Specific n = 16) were included. The SF-36 (v1) and EuroQoL EQ-5D 3L were the most widely evaluated measures with acceptable evidence of measurement properties, but limited evaluations of practical properties or relevance to this group. Evidence was mostly limited for the remaining measures. Hypothesized associations between variables were infrequently evaluated. Evidence of data quality, test-retest reliability, responsiveness, interpretation, acceptability and feasibility was also limited. Active patient involvement in PROM development or evaluation was not reported. There was limited evaluation of proxy completions. CONCLUSIONS: The paucity of robust evaluations is disappointing and prevents clear recommendations for PROM-based assessment. Further research must urgently seek to identify which outcomes really matter to this group. Future PROM selection must be underpinned by research which focuses on methodological quality, including issues of acceptability, relevance, feasibility of application, and proxy completion, whilst seeking to actively incorporate the perspective of patients and their advocates.
Entities:
Keywords:
Acceptability; Hip fracture; Older people; PROM quality; Systematic review
Authors: Andrea L Pusic; Constance M Chen; Stefan Cano; Anne Klassen; Colleen McCarthy; E Dale Collins; Peter G Cordeiro Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2007-09-15 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Steven Boonen; Philippe Autier; Martine Barette; Dirk Vanderschueren; Paul Lips; Patrick Haentjens Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2003-11-07 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Katie J Sheehan; Toby O Smith; Finbarr C Martin; Antony Johansen; Avril Drummond; Lauren Beaupre; Jay Magaziner; Julie Whitney; Ami Hommel; Ian D Cameron; Iona Price; Catherine Sackley Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2019-03-01
Authors: Nicholas Schraut; Jugert Bango; Alexandra Flaherty; Victoria Rossetti; Eric Swart Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Matthias Hoben; Jennifer A Knopp-Sihota; Maryam Nesari; Stephanie A Chamberlain; Janet E Squires; Peter G Norton; Greta G Cummings; Bonnie J Stevens; Carole A Estabrooks Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2017-11-21
Authors: Aleksey Dvorzhinskiy; Elizabeth B Gausden; Ashley E Levack; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Joseph Nguyen; Naomi E Gadinsky; David S Wellman; Dean G Lorich Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2021-01-02 Impact factor: 3.067