Literature DB >> 31107324

Can the QuickDASH PROM be Altered by First Completing the Tasks on the Instrument?

Lauren M Shapiro1, Alex H S Harris, Sara L Eppler, Robin N Kamal.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Health systems and payers use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to inform quality improvement and value-based payment models. Although it is known that psychosocial factors and priming influence PROMs, we sought to determine the effect of having patients complete functional tasks before completing the PROM questionnaire, which has not been extensively evaluated. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Will QuickDASH scores change after patients complete the tasks on the questionnaire compared with baseline QuickDASH scores? (2) Will the change in QuickDASH score in an intervention (task completion) group be different than that of a control group? (3) Will a higher proportion of patients in the intervention group than those in the control group improve their QuickDASH scores by greater than a minimally clinically important difference (MCID) of 14 points?
METHODS: During a 2-month period, 140 patients presented at our clinic with a hand or upper-extremity problem. We approached patients who spoke and read English and were 18 years old or older. One hundred thirty-two (94%) patients met the inclusion criteria and agreed to participate (mean ± SD age, 52 ± 17 years; 60 men [45%], 72 women [55%]; 112 in the intervention group [85%] and 20 in the control group [15%]). First, all patients who completed the QuickDASH PROM (at baseline) were recruited for participation. Intervention patients completed the functional tasks on the QuickDASH and completed a followup QuickDASH. Control patients were recruited and enrolled after the intervention group completed the study. Participants in the control group completed the QuickDASH at baseline and a followup QuickDASH 5 minutes after (the time required to complete the functional tasks). Paired and unpaired t-tests were used to evaluate the null hypotheses that (1) QuickDASH scores for the intervention group would not change after the tasks on the instrument were completed and (2) the change in QuickDASH score in the intervention group would not be different than that of the control group (p < 0.05). To evaluate the clinical importance of the change in score after tasks were completed, we recorded the number of patients with a change greater than an MCID of 14 points on the QuickDASH. Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate the difference between groups in those reaching an MCID of 14.
RESULTS: In the intervention group, the QuickDASH score decreased after the intervention (39 ± 24 versus 25 ± 19; mean difference, -14 points [95% CI, 12 to 16]; p < 0.001). The change in QuickDASH scores was greater in the intervention group than that in the control group (-14 ± 11 versus -2 ± 9 [95% CI, -17 to -7]; p < 0.001). A larger proportion of patients in the intervention group than in the control group demonstrated an improvement in QuickDASH scores greater than the 14-point MCID ([43 of 112 [38%] versus two of 20 [10%]; odds ratio, 5.4 [95% CI, 1 to 24%]; p = 0.019).
CONCLUSIONS: Reported disability can be reduced, thereby improving PROMs, if patients complete QuickDASH tasks before completing the questionnaire. Modifiable factors that influence PROM scores and the context in which scores are measured should be analyzed before PROMs are broadly implemented into reimbursement models and quality measures for orthopaedic surgery. Standardizing PROM administration can limit the influence of context, such as task completion, on outcome scores and should be used in value-based payment models. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31107324      PMCID: PMC7000087          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000731

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


  32 in total

1.  Medicare Program; Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Payment Model for Acute Care Hospitals Furnishing Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Services. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2015-11-24

2.  Influence of Priming on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Femke M A P Claessen; Jos J Mellema; Nicky Stoop; Bart Lubberts; David Ring; Rudolf W Poolman
Journal:  Psychosomatics       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 2.386

3.  Impact of preoperative depression on 2-year clinical outcomes following adult spinal deformity surgery: the importance of risk stratification based on type of psychological distress.

Authors:  Alexander A Theologis; Tamir Ailon; Justin K Scheer; Justin S Smith; Christopher I Shaffrey; Shay Bess; Munish Gupta; Eric O Klineberg; Khaled Kebaish; Frank Schwab; Virginie Lafage; Douglas Burton; Robert Hart; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2016-05-06

4.  The use of PROMIS and assessment center to deliver patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research.

Authors:  Richard C Gershon; Nan Rothrock; Rachel Hanrahan; Michael Bass; David Cella
Journal:  J Appl Meas       Date:  2010

Review 5.  Behavioural treatment for chronic low-back pain.

Authors:  R W J G Ostelo; M W van Tulder; J W S Vlaeyen; S J Linton; S J Morley; W J J Assendelft
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2005-01-25

6.  Comparative, validity and responsiveness of the HOOS-PS and KOOS-PS to the WOMAC physical function subscale in total joint replacement for osteoarthritis.

Authors:  A M Davis; A V Perruccio; M Canizares; G A Hawker; E M Roos; J-F Maillefert; L S Lohmander
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2009-01-31       Impact factor: 6.576

7.  The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study.

Authors:  Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments.

Authors:  Amelia A Sorensen; Daniel Howard; Wen Hui Tan; Jeffrey Ketchersid; Ryan P Calfee
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 2.230

9.  Memories of colonoscopy: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Donald A Redelmeier; Joel Katz; Daniel Kahneman
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 6.961

10.  Cognitive behavior therapy, exercise, or both for treating chronic widespread pain.

Authors:  John McBeth; Gordon Prescott; Graham Scotland; Karina Lovell; Philip Keeley; Phil Hannaford; Paul McNamee; Deborah P M Symmons; Steve Woby; Chrysa Gkazinou; Marcus Beasley; Gary J Macfarlane
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2011-11-14
View more
  4 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: Can the QuickDASH PROM be Altered by First Completing the Tasks on the Instrument?

Authors:  Tom J Crijns
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  A Comparison of Acute Versus Chronic Thumb Ulnar Collateral Ligament Surgery Using Primary Suture Anchor Repair and Local Soft Tissue Advancement.

Authors:  Stephanie Delma; Yagiz Ozdag; Jessica L Baylor; Louis C Grandizio; Joel C Klena
Journal:  J Hand Surg Glob Online       Date:  2022-03-27

3.  Editor's Spotlight/Take 5: Does a Question Prompt List Improve Perceived Involvement in Care in Orthopaedic Surgery Compared with the AskShareKnow Questions? A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Seth S Leopold
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 4.755

4.  What factors are associated with perceived disease onset in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis?

Authors:  Kenneth Furlough; Harrison Miner; Tom J Crijns; Prakash Jayakumar; David Ring; Karl Koenig
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-07-14
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.