Fabiola De Marchi1, James D Berry1, James Chan2, Sarah Caldwell1, Amy Ellrodt1, Jennifer Scalia1, Katherine Burke1, Ton Fang1, Rachel Clark Sisodia3, Lee H Schwamm4, Lidia M V R Moura4, Sabrina Paganoni5,6. 1. Healey Center for ALS, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 165 Cambridge St, Suite 600, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Massachusetts General Hospital, Biostatistics Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Massachusetts General Physicians Organization, Harvard Medical School, MGH Partners Healthcare, Somerville, MA, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Healey Center for ALS, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 165 Cambridge St, Suite 600, Boston, MA, USA. SPAGANONI@mgh.harvard.edu. 6. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. SPAGANONI@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) can provide researchers with a direct view of patients' experiences. They are becoming increasingly important tools for evaluating clinical care and research outcomes. There has been little data on the application of PROMs to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) care. The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility of PROM collection in an academic ALS clinic and to measure correlations between PROMs and standard ALS clinical outcome measures. METHODS: PROMs were gathered from tablet-based surveys offered to adult patients in the waiting room, prior to ALS outpatient clinic visits. They included a demographic section and two validated surveys: the patient reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS-10), which generates physical health and mental health subscores, and the quality of life in neurological disorders-fatigue subscale (NeuroQoL-fatigue). The ALS functional rating scale-revised (ALSFRS-R) and other ALS measures were collected by clinic staff as part of routine clinical care. RESULTS: PROMIS-10 physical and mental health scores correlated positively with the ALSFRS-R score (physical: R = 0.85, p < 0.001; mental: R = 0.58, p = 0.02). NeuroQoL-fatigue scores were inversely correlated with the ALSFRS-R scores-higher fatigue correlated with lower function (R = - 0.72, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Collection of PROMs is feasible in the context of routine ALS care. PROM scores are highly correlated with validated ALS outcome measures.
OBJECTIVE:Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) can provide researchers with a direct view of patients' experiences. They are becoming increasingly important tools for evaluating clinical care and research outcomes. There has been little data on the application of PROMs to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) care. The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility of PROM collection in an academic ALS clinic and to measure correlations between PROMs and standard ALS clinical outcome measures. METHODS: PROMs were gathered from tablet-based surveys offered to adult patients in the waiting room, prior to ALSoutpatient clinic visits. They included a demographic section and two validated surveys: the patient reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS-10), which generates physical health and mental health subscores, and the quality of life in neurological disorders-fatigue subscale (NeuroQoL-fatigue). The ALS functional rating scale-revised (ALSFRS-R) and other ALS measures were collected by clinic staff as part of routine clinical care. RESULTS: PROMIS-10 physical and mental health scores correlated positively with the ALSFRS-R score (physical: R = 0.85, p < 0.001; mental: R = 0.58, p = 0.02). NeuroQoL-fatigue scores were inversely correlated with the ALSFRS-R scores-higher fatigue correlated with lower function (R = - 0.72, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Collection of PROMs is feasible in the context of routine ALS care. PROM scores are highly correlated with validated ALS outcome measures.
Authors: Jeremy M Shefner; Dawei Liu; Melanie L Leitner; David Schoenfeld; Donald R Johns; Toby Ferguson; Merit Cudkowicz Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jochem Helleman; Esther T Kruitwagen-van Reenen; J Bakers; Willeke J Kruithof; Annerieke C van Groenestijn; Rineke J H Jaspers Focks; Arthur de Grund; Leonard H van den Berg; Johanna M A Visser-Meily; Anita Beelen Journal: J Neurol Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Massimo Russo; Christian Lunetta; Riccardo Zuccarino; Gian L Vita; Maria Sframeli; Andrea Lizio; Stefania La Foresta; Cristina Faraone; Valeria A Sansone; Giuseppe Vita; Sonia Messina Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Susan L Hartmaier; Thomas Rhodes; Suzanne F Cook; Courtney Schlusser; Chao Chen; Steve Han; Neta Zach; Venkatesha Murthy; Shreya Davé Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 3.186