Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Osteoarthritis: A systematic search and review of their use and psychometric properties

Introduction Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) or self-completed questionnaires have been used to report outcomes in osteoarthritis (OA) for over 35 years. Choices will always need to be made about what should be measured and, if relevant, what would be the most appropriate PROM to use. The current study aims to describe the available PROMs used in OA and their performance quality, so that informed choices can be made about the most appropriate PROM for a particular task. Methods The study included a systematic search for PROMs that have been in use over a 17 year-period (2000-2016), and to catalogue their psychometric properties, and to present the evidence in a user-friendly fashion. Results 78 PROM’s were identified with psychometric evidence available. The domains of Pain, Selfcare, Mobility and Work dominated, whereas domains such as Cleaning & Laundry and Leisure, together with psychological and contextual factors were poorly served. The most frequently utilised PROMs included the WOMAC, the SF-36 and the KOOS which, between them, appeared in more than 4000 papers. Most domains had at least one PROM with the highest level of psychometric evidence. Conclusion A broad range of PROMs are available for measuring OA outcomes. Some have good psychometric evidence, others not so. Some important psychological areas such as self-efficacy were poorly served. The study provides a current baseline for what is available, and identifies the shortfall in key domains if the full biopsychosocial model is to be explored

Use and detailed metric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review covering two decades

Introduction The importance of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical studies has been recognised for many years. The current study aims to describe the RA PROMs used over the past 20 years, and their performance metrics, to underpin appropriate tool selection. Methods The study included a systematic search for PROMs that have been in use over the period 2000–2019, with detailed documentation of their psychometric properties, and a user-friendly presentation of the extensive evidence base. Results 125 PROMs were identified with psychometric evidence available. The domains of pain, fatigue, emotional functions, mobility, physical functioning and work dominated, with self-efficacy and coping as personal factors. Domains such as stiffness and sleep were poorly served. The most frequently used PROMs included the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ), the Short Form 36 (SF-36), the EuroQoL and the Modified HAQ which, between them, appeared in more than 3500 papers. Strong psychometric evidence was found for the HAQ, and the SF-36 Physical Functioning and Vitality (fatigue) domains. Otherwise, all domains except stiffness, sleep, education and health utility, had at least one PROM with moderate level of psychometric evidence. Conclusion There is a broad range of PROMs for measuring RA outcomes, but the quality of psychometric evidence varies widely. This work identifies gaps in key RA domains according to the biopsychosocial model

An initial application of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for measuring disability in patients with low back pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent approaches to outcome measurement involving Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) offer an approach for measuring disability in low back pain (LBP) in a way that can reduce the burden upon patient and professional. The aim of this study was to explore the potential of CAT in LBP for measuring disability as defined in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) which includes impairments, activity limitation, and participation restriction.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>266 patients with low back pain answered questions from a range of widely used questionnaires. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify disability dimensions which were then subjected to Rasch analysis. Reliability was tested by internal consistency and person separation index (PSI). Discriminant validity of disability levels were evaluated by Spearman correlation coefficient (r), intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC(2,1)] and the Bland-Altman approach. A CAT was developed for each dimension, and the results checked against simulated and real applications from a further 133 patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Factor analytic techniques identified two dimensions named "body functions" and "activity-participation". After deletion of some items for failure to fit the Rasch model, the remaining items were mostly free of Differential Item Functioning (DIF) for age and gender. Reliability exceeded 0.90 for both dimensions. The disability levels generated using all items and those obtained from the real CAT application were highly correlated (i.e. > 0.97 for both dimensions). On average, 19 and 14 items were needed to estimate the precise disability levels using the initial CAT for the first and second dimension. However, a marginal increase in the standard error of the estimate across successive iterations substantially reduced the number of items required to make an estimate.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Using a combination approach of EFA and Rasch analysis this study has shown that it is possible to calibrate items onto a single metric in a way that can be used to provide the basis of a CAT application. Thus there is an opportunity to obtain a wide variety of information to evaluate the biopsychosocial model in its more complex forms, without necessarily increasing the burden of information collection for patients.</p

Cross-cultural validity of FIM in spinal cord injury.

Data from the FIM motor scale for patients with spinal cord injury should not be pooled in its raw form, or compared from country to country. Only after fit to the Rasch model and necessary adjustments could such a comparison be made, but with a loss of clinical important items. The FIM cognitive scale works well following rescoring, and data may be pooled, but many patients were at the maximum score

White Book on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) in Europe. Chapter 3. A primary medical specialty: the fundamentals of PRM

In the context of the White Book of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) in Europe, this paper deals with the core concepts at the base of the PRM specialty. These are the essential constituents that make PRM a primary medical specialty, different from all the other medical specialties, and PRM physician the primary medical specialist among the rehabilitation professionals. The core concepts that will be discussed in this Section include: - PRM is a person/functioning oriented specialty, and this makes the specialty different from the organ/disease oriented, or treatment/age specific medical specialties. - PRM physicians have medical responsibilities, like all the other medical specialists, but with an additional specificity of making a functional assessment. - Like the other specialists, PRM physicians provide direct treatments, but they also work leading the multi-professional rehabilitation team, that works in a collaborative way with other professionals and medical specialists. - Due to its function oriented approach, PRM has a multimodal approach including a wide variety of treatment tools (frequently provided by other rehabilitation professionals) and manages all persons' morbidities (health conditions), since it focuses on decreasing impairments and activity limitations to allow the best possible participation of patients. - As PRM bases its work on functioning, it has a transversal role to other specialties: it overlaps with several of them, sharing part of their knowledge, but it is also totally independent from all of them, since it is based on a different and transversal body of knowledge. - PRM is focused on the person and neither on the disease nor on the setting; in fact, PRM is not only transversal to specialties, but also to the settings of care, and PRM physicians should know these different realities: persons with disabilities and those with long-term health conditions in fact move inside the national health systems between various facilities to obtain the best possible functioning and participation through an appropriate rehabilitation process