Adam P Goode1, Pengshend Ni2, Alan Jette3, G Kelley Fitzgerald1,4. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of Medicine, 200 Trent Drive, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710 (USA). 2. Boston University School of Public Health, Health & Disability Research Institute, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Rehabilitation Science, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
Background: Pragmatic studies have gained popularity, thus emphasizing the need for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) to be integrated into electronic health records. Objective: This study describes the development of a customized short form from the Boston University Osteoarthritis Functional Assessment PRO (BU-OA-PRO) for a specific pragmatic clinical trial. Methods: A Functional Pain Short Form was created from an existing item bank of deidentified data in the BU-OA-PRO. Item response theory (IRT) methods were used to select items. Reliability was measured with the Cronbach alpha, then with IRT simulation methods. To examine validity, ceiling and floor effects, correlations between the short-form scores and scores from the BU-OA-PRO and the Western Ontario McMasters University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain and Difficulty subscales, and the area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. A minimum detectable change at 90% confidence (MDC90) was calculated based on a calibration sample. Results: The BU-OA-PRO was reduced from 126 items to 10 items to create the BU-OA Functional Pain Short Form (BU-OA-FPS). The Cronbach alpha indicated high internal consistency (0.91), and reliability distribution estimates were 0.96 (uniform) and 0.92 (normal). Low ceiling effects (4.57%) and floor effects (0%) were found. Moderate-to-high correlations between the BU-OA-PRO and BU-OA-FPS were found with WOMAC Pain (BU-OA-FPS = 0.67; BU-OA-PRO = 0.64) and Difficulty (BU-OA-FPS = 0.73; BU-OA-PRO = 0.69) subscales. The correlation between the BU-OA-PRO and BU-OA-FPS was 0.94. The AUC ranged from 0.80 to 0.88. The MDC90 was approximately 6 standardized points. Conclusions: The BU-OA-FPS provides reliable and valid measurement of functional pain. Pragmatic studies may consider the BU-OA-FPS for use in electronic health records to capture outcomes.
Background: Pragmatic studies have gained popularity, thus emphasizing the need for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) to be integrated into electronic health records. Objective: This study describes the development of a customized short form from the Boston University Osteoarthritis Functional Assessment PRO (BU-OA-PRO) for a specific pragmatic clinical trial. Methods: A Functional Pain Short Form was created from an existing item bank of deidentified data in the BU-OA-PRO. Item response theory (IRT) methods were used to select items. Reliability was measured with the Cronbach alpha, then with IRT simulation methods. To examine validity, ceiling and floor effects, correlations between the short-form scores and scores from the BU-OA-PRO and the Western Ontario McMasters University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain and Difficulty subscales, and the area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. A minimum detectable change at 90% confidence (MDC90) was calculated based on a calibration sample. Results: The BU-OA-PRO was reduced from 126 items to 10 items to create the BU-OA Functional Pain Short Form (BU-OA-FPS). The Cronbach alpha indicated high internal consistency (0.91), and reliability distribution estimates were 0.96 (uniform) and 0.92 (normal). Low ceiling effects (4.57%) and floor effects (0%) were found. Moderate-to-high correlations between the BU-OA-PRO and BU-OA-FPS were found with WOMAC Pain (BU-OA-FPS = 0.67; BU-OA-PRO = 0.64) and Difficulty (BU-OA-FPS = 0.73; BU-OA-PRO = 0.69) subscales. The correlation between the BU-OA-PRO and BU-OA-FPS was 0.94. The AUC ranged from 0.80 to 0.88. The MDC90 was approximately 6 standardized points. Conclusions: The BU-OA-FPS provides reliable and valid measurement of functional pain. Pragmatic studies may consider the BU-OA-FPS for use in electronic health records to capture outcomes.
Authors: Thomas W Concannon; Paul Meissner; Jo Anne Grunbaum; Newell McElwee; Jeanne-Marie Guise; John Santa; Patrick H Conway; Denise Daudelin; Elaine H Morrato; Laurel K Leslie Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Neil K Aaronson; Ali K Choucair; Thomas E Elliott; Joanne Greenhalgh; Michele Y Halyard; Rachel Hess; Deborah M Miller; Bryce B Reeve; Maria Santana Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Christine M McDonough; Pengsheng Ni; Wendy J Coster; Stephen M Haley; Alan M Jette Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Dirk L Knol; Paul W Stratford; Jordi Alonso; Donald L Patrick; Lex M Bouter; Henrica Cw de Vet Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: L B Mokkink; C B Terwee; D L Knol; P W Stratford; J Alonso; D L Patrick; L M Bouter; H C W de Vet Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2006-01-24 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Alan M Jette; Christine M McDonough; Pengsheng Ni; Stephen M Haley; Ronald K Hambleton; Sippy Olarsch; David J Hunter; Young-jo Kim; David T Felson Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2009-07-09 Impact factor: 5.156