Literature DB >> 31868824

Value in Research: Achieving Validated Outcome Measurements While Mitigating Follow-up Cost.

.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Outcome-based research is dependent on effective follow-up, and often automated methods are augmented with costlier manual methods. The question remains as to whether the costly endeavor of achieving 80% follow-up is justified for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)-based research. This study evaluated associations between baseline patient characteristics and the required follow-up method, between the follow-up method and 1-year PROMs, and between baseline characteristics and 1-year PROMs for all patients compared with those for patients requiring only automated follow-up.
METHODS: The Orthopaedic Minimal Data Set Episode of Care (OME) database, which prospectively collects patient data and PROMs, was utilized to analyze 5,888 shoulder, hip, and knee surgical procedures at a large integrated health system. Patients were further grouped according to the method of follow-up (automated, manual, or non-responder). Associations between baseline characteristics and follow-up method were evaluated with multinomial logistic regression models. Associations of baseline characteristics with 1-year pain scores were evaluated with proportional odds logistic regression models.
RESULTS: Younger age was associated with a higher likelihood of requiring manual follow-up rather than automated follow-up for the knee surgery group (p < 0.001) and the shoulder surgery group (p < 0.001). The relative risk ratio of requiring the manual method for men undergoing a shoulder surgical procedure was 1.4 times that of women (p = 0.02). Better mental health and more education were associated with a higher likelihood of responding to automated follow-up for the hip surgery group (p < 0.001) and the knee surgery group (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in distribution of 1-year pain scores between automated and manual follow-up methods for the knee surgery group (p = 0.51) and the shoulder surgery group (p = 0.17). There was a significant difference in 1-year pain scores for the hip surgery group (p = 0.03) that was not clinically meaningful.
CONCLUSIONS: Baseline patient characteristics were significantly associated with follow-up requirements; however, there were no significant and clinically meaningful differences in 1-year PROMs. Limiting follow-up to automated methods may have the potential to transform the way that outcome-based research is designed and conducted to provide substantially better research value in large prospective cohorts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31868824     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.19.00531

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  4 in total

1.  Effectiveness of a Web-Based Electronic Prospective Data Collection Tool for Surgical Data in Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sambit Sahoo; José A Rodríguez; Matthew Serna; Kurt P Spindler; Kathleen A Derwin; Joseph P Iannotti; Eric T Ricchetti
Journal:  Semin Arthroplasty       Date:  2021-02-13

2.  Loss to patient-reported outcome measure follow-up after hip arthroplasty and knee arthroplasty : patient satisfaction, associations with non-response, and maximizing returns.

Authors:  Lauren A Ross; Sara C O'Rourke; Gemma Toland; Deborah J MacDonald; Nick D Clement; Chloe E H Scott
Journal:  Bone Jt Open       Date:  2022-04

3.  Are responders to patient health surveys representative of those invited to participate? An analysis of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Pilot from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Authors:  Ian A Harris; Kara Cashman; Michelle Lorimer; Yi Peng; Ilana Ackerman; Emma Heath; Stephen E Graves
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Exploration of Overdose Risk Score and Postoperative Complications and Health Care Use After Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ahmed K Emara; Daniel Santana; Daniel Grits; Alison K Klika; Viktor E Krebs; Robert M Molloy; Nicolas S Piuzzi
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-06-01
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.