Literature DB >> 31571028

Associations between interim patient-reported outcome measures and functional status at discharge from rehabilitation for non-specific lumbar impairments.

Mark W Werneke1,2, Daniel Deutscher3, Julie Fritz4, Michael A Kallen5, Karon F Cook5, Deanna Hayes6, Jerome E Mioduski6, Linda J Woodhouse7,8.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Identify impact of frequency and timing of interim Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) assessments during episodes of care for rehabilitation services in outpatient clinical settings on functional status (FS) outcomes at discharge for patients with low back pain.
METHODS: FS outcomes of patients who had no interim PROMs were compared to outcomes of six patient groups defined by interim timing (early, mid, late) and frequency (1, 2 or more). For each comparison, patients were matched using propensity score matching for variables known to be associated with FS outcomes and for episode duration (days) and number of visits. FS was assessed using the lumbar computerized adaptive test (LCAT) where scores range from 0 to 100 with higher scores representing better physical function.
RESULTS: A sample of 140,336 patients was considered for matching (mean age = 58 [SD = 17] range 18-89; 60% females) with 83,101 patients (59%) having no interim PROMs. Patients who had only one interim PROM, administered during early (first 2 weeks), mid (weeks 3-4), or late (week 5 or later) timing, had 4.6, 2.7, and 1.0 additional FS score points at discharge compared to those without an interim PROM, respectively (p < 0.001). Having two or more interim PROMs was associated with an additional 1.2 FS points compared to having only one interim assessment, but only if the first interim was administered early.
CONCLUSIONS: Optimal utilization of interim PROM assessment during clinical practice to enhance treatment outcomes was related to administering the first interim PROM within the first 2 weeks after the initial evaluation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Functional outcome assessment; Lumbar; Patient-reported outcome measure; Rehabilitation; Survey administration

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31571028     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02314-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  27 in total

1.  The Development and Psychometric Properties of the Patient Self-Report Neck Functional Status Questionnaire (NFSQ).

Authors:  Ying-Chih Wang; Karon F Cook; Daniel Deutscher; Mark W Werneke; Deanna Hayes; Jerome E Mioduski
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 4.751

2.  Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Symone B Detmar; Martin J Muller; Jan H Schornagel; Lidwina D V Wever; Neil K Aaronson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-12-18       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations.

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

4.  Impact of Risk Adjustment on Provider Ranking for Patients With Low Back Pain Receiving Physical Therapy.

Authors:  Daniel Deutscher; Mark W Werneke; Deanna Hayes; Jerome E Mioduski; Karon F Cook; Julie M Fritz; Linda J Woodhouse; Paul W Stratford
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2018-05-22       Impact factor: 4.751

5.  Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare.

Authors:  Nick Black
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-01-28

6.  The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why?

Authors:  Joanne Greenhalgh
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-12-23       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-02-15       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Oh, the Places We'll Go: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Electronic Health Records.

Authors:  Sarah G Gensheimer; Albert W Wu; Claire F Snyder
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  What do these scores mean? Presenting patient-reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability.

Authors:  Claire F Snyder; Katherine C Smith; Elissa T Bantug; Elliott E Tolbert; Amanda L Blackford; Michael D Brundage
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-01-13       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.