Application of the health assessment questionnaire disability index to various rheumatic diseases

Purpose\ud \ud To investigate whether the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) can serve as a generic instrument for measuring disability across different rheumatic diseases and to propose a scoring method based on item response theory (IRT) modeling to support this goal.\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud The HAQ-DI was administered to a cross-sectional sample of patients with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis (n = 619), osteoarthritis (n = 125), or gout (n = 102). The results were analyzed using the generalized partial credit model as an IRT model.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud It was found that 4 out of 8 item categories of the HAQ-DI displayed substantial differential item functioning (DIF) over the three diseases. Further, it was shown that this DIF could be modeled using an IRT model with disease-specific item parameters, which produces measures that are comparable for the three diseases.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud Although the HAQ-DI partially functioned differently in the three disease groups, the measurement regarding the disability level of the patients can be made comparable using IRT methods\u

Multidisciplinary and multifaceted outpatient management of patients with osteoarthritis: protocol for a randomised, controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent joint disorder with a need for efficient and evidence-based management strategies.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>The primary purpose of this study is to compare the effects of a multidisciplinary outpatient clinic, including a brief group-based educational programme, with a traditional individual outpatient clinic for patients with hip, knee, hand or generalized OA. A secondary purpose is to investigate the effects of a telephone follow-up call.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a pragmatic randomised single-blind controlled study with a total of 400 patients with hip, knee, hand or generalized OA between 40 and 80 years referred to an outpatient rheumatology hospital clinic. The randomisation is stratified according to the diagnostic subgroups. The experimental group is exposed to a multidisciplinary and multifaceted intervention, including a 3.5 hour group-based patient education programme about OA in addition to individual consultations with members of a multidisciplinary team. The control intervention is based on regular care with an individual outpatient consultation with a rheumatologist (treatment as usual). Primary outcomes are patient satisfaction measured at 4 months and cost-effectiveness measured at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are pain and global disease activity measured on a numeric rating scales (NRS), generic and disease specific functioning and disability using Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index 3 (WOMAC), the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN), and a patient-generated measure of disability (Patient-Specific Functional scale, PSFS). Global perceived effect of change in health status during the study period is also reported. At 4-month follow-up, patients in both groups will be randomly allocated to a 10-minute telephone call or no follow-up ("treatment as usual"). After additional 8 months (12-month follow-up) the four groups will be compared in a secondary analysis with regard to health outcomes and health care costs.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial will provide results on how multidisciplinary and multifaceted management of patients with OA affects health outcomes and health care costs.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25778426</p

Cutpoints for mild, moderate and severe pain in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee ready for joint replacement surgery

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cutpoints (CPs) for mild, moderate and severe pain are established and used primarily in cancer pain. In this study, we wanted to determine the optimal CPs for mild, moderate, and severe pain in joint replacement surgery candidates with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee, and to validate the different CPs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients (n = 353) completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the WOMAC Arthritis Index, and the SF-36 health status measure. Optimal CPs for categorizing average pain with three severity levels were derived using multivariate analysis of variance, using different CP sets for average pain as the independent variable and seven interference items from the BPI as the dependent variable. To validate the CPs, we assessed if patients in the three pain severity groups differed in pain as assessed with WOMAC and SF-36, and if BPI average pain with the optimal CPs resulted in higher correlation with pain dimensions of the WOMAC and SF-36 than other CPs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The optimal CPs on the 0–10 point BPI scale were CP (4,6) among hip patients and CP (4,7) among knee patients. The resulting pain severity groups differed in pain, as assessed with other scales than those used to derive the CPs. The optimal CPs had the highest association of average pain with WOMAC pain scores.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>CPs for pain severity differed somewhat for patients with OA of the hip and knee. The association of BPI average pain scores categorized according to the optimal CPs with WOMAC pain scores supports the validity of the derived optimal CPs.</p

Performance of the Norwegian version of AUSCAN – a disease-specific measure of hand osteoarthritis

SummaryObjectiveTo examine the performance of the Norwegian version of the AUSCAN Index as a disease-specific health status measure in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA).MethodsOne hundred and ninety-nine patients with clinical hand OA (mean (SD) age 61.7 (5.7) years, 18 (9%) males) underwent a comprehensive examination including joint status, examination of grip strength and completion of several self-reported health status questionnaires. The Australian/Canadian OA hand index (AUSCAN) captures three different dimensions of hand OA: pain (5 items), stiffness (1 item), and difficulties with daily activities (9 items). Our pre-study hypothesis was to identify AUSCAN as a specific hand measure with strong correlations to hand measures and lower correlations to other general measures of health.ResultsPatient completion of the AUSCAN Index was similar or better than other measures. The internal consistency of the AUSCAN was excellent. The pain and physical dimension of AUSCAN correlated substantially to each other and moderately to the stiffness scale. The AUSCAN physical scale correlated moderately to substantially to other measures, the highest correlation being seen with the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale (AIMS) 2 hand and finger function scale (r=0.73). The standardised differences between patients with and without radiographic abnormalities were numerically larger for the AUSCAN pain and physical scales than for other measures.ConclusionThe Norwegian version of the AUSCAN has an acceptable clinimetric performance and is a suitable tool for assessment of hand OA