Literature DB >> 32740479

What Factors Are Associated with Patient-reported Outcome Measure Questionnaire Completion for an Electronic Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry?

Daphne I Ling1,2, Anthony Finocchiaro1, Brandon Schneider1, EmilyYing Lai1, Joshua Dines1, Lawrence Gulotta1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There has been an increase in the use of electronic systems to collect patient-reported outcome measures. There is limited data on the added value of electronic reporting on increasing patient response proportions and little knowledge of which patients are more likely to respond. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of patients completed patient-reported outcome questionnaires at baseline and at 1 year and 2 years of follow-up after shoulder arthroplasty, and what methods did they use to complete these questionnaires (either automated or manual data collection)? (2) What factors were associated with questionnaire completion?
METHODS: Our shoulder arthroplasty registry from a high-volume, tertiary care center implemented an electronic platform to collect patient-reported outcomes. A total of 2128 patients underwent shoulder arthroplasty between 2016 and 2019. Patients without an email address on file were excluded; 90% (1907 of 2128) of patients were included in the study. The population was 50% women (954 of 1907) with a mean age of 67 ± 9 years. A query was performed to determine whether patients completed questionnaires by either automated or manual data collection at baseline and 1 year and 2 years of follow-up after shoulder arthroplasty. In a logistic regression analysis, patient factors (such as demographics, education, and living arrangements) were evaluated for their association with whether patients completed these questionnaires.
RESULTS: The proportion of questionnaire completion at baseline, 1 year, and 2 years were 72% (1369 of 1907), 47% (456 of 972), and 33% (128 of 393), respectively. Of the patients who completed their questionnaires, 63% (868 of 1369) did so through automated emails at baseline, 84% (381 of 456) did so at 1 year, and 81% (103 of 128) did so at 2 years. The remainder completed their questionnaires through manual data collection with a research assistant: 37% (501 of 1369) at baseline, 16% (75 of 456) at 1 year, and 19% (25 of 128) at 2 years. After controlling for potentially confounding variables like patient demographics, college education, and living arrangements, women were less likely to complete baseline questionnaires than men (odds ratio 0.78 [95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.99]; p = 0.04), and white patients (OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.05 to 2.44]; p = 0.03) were more likely than nonwhite patients to have complete baseline questionnaires. At 2 years of follow-up, patients with a college education (OR 2.06 [95% CI 1.14 to 3.71]; p = 0.02), those who lived alone (OR 2.11 [95% CI 1.13 to 3.94]; p = 0.02), and those who had higher baseline Shoulder Activity Scale scores (OR 1.05 [95% CI 1.00 to 1.11]; p = 0.04) were more likely to have complete questionnaires than those without a college education, those who lived with other people, and those with lower SAS scores, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The challenges of adopting an online platform include low follow-up proportions and the need for manual assistance by a research assistant to increase patient completion of questionnaires. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The knowledge of which patient characteristics are associated with a higher likelihood of completing questionnaires has implications for targeted follow-up or representative sampling of the population in a registry. Populations that are less likely to respond may require more effort to reach to prevent exacerbating health outcome disparities. Random sampling with upweighting of hard-to-reach populations may also provide a solution to achieve a representative population of patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty.
Copyright © 2020 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 32740479      PMCID: PMC7899616          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001424

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.755


  12 in total

1.  Predictors of outcomes of total knee replacement surgery.

Authors:  Andy Judge; Nigel K Arden; Cyrus Cooper; M Kassim Javaid; Andrew J Carr; Richard E Field; Paul A Dieppe
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 7.580

2.  Patient Compliance With Electronic Patient Reported Outcomes Following Shoulder Arthroscopy.

Authors:  Eric C Makhni; John D Higgins; Jason T Hamamoto; Brian J Cole; Anthony A Romeo; Nikhil N Verma
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Collection Systems in Orthopaedic Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Vincent A Lizzio; Mihir S Dekhne; Eric C Makhni
Journal:  JBJS Rev       Date:  2019-07

4.  Predictors of Low Patient-Reported Outcomes Response Rates in the California Joint Replacement Registry.

Authors:  Jay Patel; Jason H Lee; Zhongmin Li; Nelson Fong SooHoo; Kevin Bozic; James I Huddleston
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Barriers to completion of Patient Reported Outcome Measures.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Schamber; Steven K Takemoto; Kate Eresian Chenok; Kevin J Bozic
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Response bias: effect on outcomes evaluation by mail surveys after total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jane Kim; Jess H Lonner; Charles L Nelson; Paul A Lotke
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Editorial Commentary: Is the Information Gathered From Patient-Reported Outcome Worth the Time and Effort? Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Data Collection Systems Result in Poor Response Rate.

Authors:  Merrick J Wetzler
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 8.  The utility of international shoulder joint replacement registries and databases: a comparative analytic review of two hundred and sixty one thousand, four hundred and eighty four cases.

Authors:  Carlos Eduardo Afanador Bayona; Jeremy S Somerson; Frederick A Matsen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-09-30       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Factors associated with non-response in routine use of patient reported outcome measures after elective surgery in England.

Authors:  Andrew Hutchings; Jenny Neuburger; Kirstin Grosse Frie; Nick Black; Jan van der Meulen
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2012-03-30       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis.

Authors:  Ola Rolfson; Eric Bohm; Patricia Franklin; Stephen Lyman; Geke Denissen; Jill Dawson; Jennifer Dunn; Kate Eresian Chenok; Michael Dunbar; Søren Overgaard; Göran Garellick; Anne Lübbeke
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2016-05-26       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  2 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: What Factors Are Associated with Patient-reported Outcome Measure Questionnaire Completion for an Electronic Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry?

Authors:  Uma Srikumaran
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 4.755

2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.