Willemijn A De Ridder1,2,3,4, Yara E van Kooij1,2,3,4, Guus M Vermeulen1,2,3,4, Harm P Slijper1,2,3,4, Ruud W Selles1,2,3,4, Robbert M Wouters1,2,3,4. 1. W. A. De Ridder, Y. E. van Kooij, H. P. Slijper, R. W. Selles, R. M. Wouters, Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 2. W. A. De Ridder, Y. E. van Kooji, H. P. Slijper, R. W. Selles, R.M. Wouters, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 3. W. A. De Ridder, G. M. Vermeulen, H. P. Slijper, Hand and Wrist Center, Xpert Clinic, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. 4. W. A. De Ridder, Y. E. van Kooij, R. M. Wouters, Center for Hand Therapy, Handtherapie Nederland, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A patient's satisfaction with a treatment result is an important outcome domain as clinicians increasingly focus on patient-centered, value-based healthcare. However, to our knowledge, there are no validated satisfaction metrics focusing on treatment results for hand and wrist conditions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Among patients who were treated for hand and wrist conditions, we asked: (1) What is the test-retest reliability of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire? (2) What is the construct validity of that outcomes tool? METHODS: This was a prospective study using two samples: a test-retest reliability sample and a construct validity sample. For the test-retest sample, data collection took place between February 2020 and May 2020, and we included 174 patients at the end of their treatment with complete baseline data that included both the primary test and the retest. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with a mean time difference of 7.2 ± 1.6 days. For the construct validity sample, data collection took place between January 2012 and May 2020. We included 3742 patients who completed the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire, VAS, and the Net Promotor Score (NPS) at 3 months. Construct validity was evaluated using hypothesis testing in which we correlated the patients' level of satisfaction to the willingness to undergo the treatment again, VAS scores, and the NPS. We performed additional hypothesis testing on 2306 patients who also completed the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). Satisfaction with the treatment result was measured as the patients' level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale and their willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances. RESULTS: We found high reliability for level of satisfaction measured on Likert scale (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.86 [95% CI 0.81 to 0.89]) and almost-perfect agreement for both level of satisfaction measured on the Likert scale (weighted kappa 0.86 [95% CI 0.80 to 0.91]) and willingness to undergo the treatment again (kappa 0.81 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.92]) of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire. Construct validity was good to excellent as seven of the eight hypotheses were confirmed. In the confirmed hypotheses, there was a moderate-to-strong correlation with VAS pain, VAS function, NPS, MHQ pain, and MHQ general hand function (Spearman rho ranged from 0.43 to 0.67; all p < 0.001) and a strong to very strong correlation with VAS satisfaction and MHQ satisfaction (Spearman rho 0.73 and 0.71; both p < 0.001). The rejected hypothesis indicated only a moderate correlation between the level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale and the willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances (Spearman rho 0.44; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire has good-to-excellent construct validity and very high test-retest reliability in patients with hand and wrist conditions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This questionnaire can be used to reliably and validly measure satisfaction with treatment result in striving for patient-centered care and value-based healthcare. Future research should investigate predictors of variation in satisfaction with treatment results.
BACKGROUND: A patient's satisfaction with a treatment result is an important outcome domain as clinicians increasingly focus on patient-centered, value-based healthcare. However, to our knowledge, there are no validated satisfaction metrics focusing on treatment results for hand and wrist conditions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Among patients who were treated for hand and wrist conditions, we asked: (1) What is the test-retest reliability of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire? (2) What is the construct validity of that outcomes tool? METHODS: This was a prospective study using two samples: a test-retest reliability sample and a construct validity sample. For the test-retest sample, data collection took place between February 2020 and May 2020, and we included 174 patients at the end of their treatment with complete baseline data that included both the primary test and the retest. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with a mean time difference of 7.2 ± 1.6 days. For the construct validity sample, data collection took place between January 2012 and May 2020. We included 3742 patients who completed the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire, VAS, and the Net Promotor Score (NPS) at 3 months. Construct validity was evaluated using hypothesis testing in which we correlated the patients' level of satisfaction to the willingness to undergo the treatment again, VAS scores, and the NPS. We performed additional hypothesis testing on 2306 patients who also completed the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). Satisfaction with the treatment result was measured as the patients' level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale and their willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances. RESULTS: We found high reliability for level of satisfaction measured on Likert scale (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.86 [95% CI 0.81 to 0.89]) and almost-perfect agreement for both level of satisfaction measured on the Likert scale (weighted kappa 0.86 [95% CI 0.80 to 0.91]) and willingness to undergo the treatment again (kappa 0.81 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.92]) of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire. Construct validity was good to excellent as seven of the eight hypotheses were confirmed. In the confirmed hypotheses, there was a moderate-to-strong correlation with VAS pain, VAS function, NPS, MHQ pain, and MHQ general hand function (Spearman rho ranged from 0.43 to 0.67; all p < 0.001) and a strong to very strong correlation with VAS satisfaction and MHQ satisfaction (Spearman rho 0.73 and 0.71; both p < 0.001). The rejected hypothesis indicated only a moderate correlation between the level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale and the willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances (Spearman rho 0.44; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire has good-to-excellent construct validity and very high test-retest reliability in patients with hand and wrist conditions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This questionnaire can be used to reliably and validly measure satisfaction with treatment result in striving for patient-centered care and value-based healthcare. Future research should investigate predictors of variation in satisfaction with treatment results.
Authors: Lisa A Mandl; Dina H Galvin; Joanne P Bosch; Cynthia C George; Barry P Simmons; Teal S Axt; Anne H Fossel; Jeffrey N Katz Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 4.666
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: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Miriam Marks; Daniel B Herren; Thea P M Vliet Vlieland; Beat R Simmen; Felix Angst; Jörg Goldhahn Journal: J Hand Ther Date: 2011-06-17 Impact factor: 1.950
Authors: Ruud W Selles; Robbert M Wouters; Ralph Poelstra; Mark J W van der Oest; Jarry T Porsius; Steven E R Hovius; Thybout M Moojen; Yara van Kooij; Pierre-Yves Pennehouat; Rob van Huis; Guus M Vermeulen; Reinier Feitz; Harm P Slijper Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Kate Breckenridge; Hillary L Bekker; Elizabeth Gibbons; Sabine N van der Veer; Denise Abbott; Serge Briançon; Ron Cullen; Liliana Garneata; Kitty J Jager; Kjersti Lønning; Wendy Metcalfe; Rachael L Morton; Fliss E M Murtagh; Karl Prutz; Susan Robertson; Ivan Rychlik; Steffan Schon; Linda Sharp; Elodie Speyer; Francesca Tentori; Fergus J Caskey Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Willemijn Anna De Ridder; Robbert Maarten Wouters; Lisa Hoogendam; Guus Maarten Vermeulen; Harm Pieter Slijper; Ruud Willem Selles Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Joris S Teunissen; Mark J W van der Oest; Ruud W Selles; Dietmar J O Ulrich; Steven E R Hovius; Brigitte van der Heijden Journal: Bone Jt Open Date: 2022-05