The Ultrashort Mental Health Screening Tool Is a Valid and Reliable Measure With Added Value to Support Decision-making

BACKGROUND: Mental health influences symptoms, outcomes, and decision-making in musculoskeletal healthcare. Implementing measures of mental health in clinical practice can be challenging. An ultrashort screening tool for mental health with a low burden is currently unavailable but could be used as a conversation starter, expectation management tool, or decision support tool.QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Which items of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4), and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ) are the most discriminative and yield a high correlation with the total scores of these questionnaires? (2) What is the construct validity and added clinical value (explained variance for pain and hand function) of an ultrashort four-item mental health screening tool? (3) What is the test-retest reliability of the screening tool? (4) What is the response time for the ultrashort screening tool?METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study. Data collection was part of usual care at Xpert Clinics, the Netherlands, but prospective measurements were added to this study. Between September 2017 and January 2022, we included 19,156 patients with hand and wrist conditions. We subdivided these into four samples: a test set to select the screener items (n = 18,034), a validation set to determine whether the selected items were solid (n = 1017), a sample to determine the added clinical value (explained variance for pain and hand function, n = 13,061), and a sample to assess the test-retest reliability (n = 105). Patients were eligible for either sample if they completed all relevant measurements of interest for that particular sample. To create an ultrashort screening tool that is valid, reliable, and has added value, we began by picking the most discriminatory items (that is, the items that were most influential for determining the total score) from the PCS, PHQ-4, and B-IPQ using chi-square automated interaction detection (a machine-learning algorithm). To assess construct validity (how well our screening tool assesses the constructs of interest), we correlated these items with the associated sum score of the full questionnaire in the test and validation sets. We compared the explained variance of linear models for pain and function using the screening tool items or the original sum scores of the PCS, PHQ-4, and B-IPQ to further assess the screening tool's construct validity and added value. We evaluated test-retest reliability by calculating weighted kappas, ICCs, and the standard error of measurement.RESULTS: We identified four items and used these in the screening tool. The screening tool items were highly correlated with the PCS (Pearson coefficient = 0.82; p &lt; 0.001), PHQ-4 (0.87; p &lt; 0.001), and B-IPQ (0.85; p &lt; 0.001) sum scores, indicating high construct validity. The full questionnaires explained only slightly more variance in pain and function (10% to 22%) than the screening tool did (9% to 17%), again indicating high construct validity and much added clinical value of the screening tool. Test-retest reliability was high for the PCS (ICC 0.75, weighted kappa 0.75) and B-IPQ (ICC 0.70 to 0.75, standard error of measurement 1.3 to 1.4) items and moderate for the PHQ-4 item (ICC 0.54, weighted kappa 0.54). The median response time was 43 seconds, against more than 4 minutes for the full questionnaires.CONCLUSION: Our ultrashort, valid, and reliable screening tool for pain catastrophizing, psychologic distress, and illness perception can be used before clinician consultation and may serve as a conversation starter, an expectation management tool, or a decision support tool. The clinical utility of the screening tool is that it can indicate that further testing is warranted, guide a clinician when considering a consultation with a mental health specialist, or support a clinician in choosing between more invasive and less invasive treatments. Future studies could investigate how the tool can be used optimally and whether using the screening tool affects daily clinic decisions.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.</p

Tailoring and evaluating treatment with the Patient-Specific Needs Evaluation:A Patient-Centered Approach

BACKGROUND: No patient-reported instrument assesses patient-specific information needs, treatment goals, and Personal Meaningful Gain (PMG, a novel construct evaluating individualized, clinically relevant improvement). This study reports the development of the Patient-Specific Needs Evaluation (PSN) and examines its discriminative validity (i.e., its ability to distinguish satisfied from dissatisfied patients) and test-retest reliability in patients with hand or wrist conditions.METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used to develop and validate the PSN, following COSMIN guidelines, including pilot testing, a survey (pilot: n=223, final PSN: n=275), cognitive debriefing (n=16), expert input, and validation. Discriminative validity was assessed by comparing the satisfaction level of patients who did or did not achieve their PMG (n=1,985) and test-retest reliability using absolute agreement, Cohen's kappa, and ICCs (n=102). We used a sample of 2,860 patients to describe responses to the final PSN.RESULTS: The PSN has only five questions (completion time ±3 minutes) and is freely accessible online. The items and response options were considered understandable by 90-92% and complete by 84-89% of the end-users. The PSN had excellent discriminative validity (Cramer's V: 0.48, p&lt;0.001) and moderate to high test-retest reliability (Kappa: 0.46-0.68, ICCs: 0.53-0.73).CONCLUSIONS: The PSN is a freely available patient-centered decision-support tool that helps clinicians tailor their consultations to the patient's individual needs and goals. It contains the PMG, a novel construct evaluating individualized, clinically relevant treatment outcomes. The PSN may function as a conversation starter, facilitate expectation management, and aid shared decision-making. The PSN is implementation-ready and can be readily adapted to other patient populations.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.</p

Test-retest Reliability and Construct Validity of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire in Patients with Hand and Wrist Conditions: A Prospective Study

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

Changes in illness perception, pain catastrophizing, and psychological distress following hand surgeon consultation:A prospective study

Background: Baseline mindset factors are important factors that influence treatment decisions and outcomes. Theoretically, improving the mindset prior to treatment may improve treatment decisions and outcomes. This prospective cohort study evaluated changes in patients' mindset following hand surgeon consultation. Additionally, we assessed if the change in illness perception differed between surgical and nonsurgical patients. Methods: The primary outcome was illness perception, measured using the total score of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ, range 0–80). Secondary outcomes were the B-IPQ subscales, pain catastrophizing (measured using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)), and psychological distress (measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-4). Results: A total of 276 patients with various hand and wrist conditions completed the mindset questionnaires before and after hand surgeon consultation (median time interval: 15 days). The B-IPQ total score improved from 39.7 (±10.6) before to 35.8 (±11.3) after consultation (p &lt; 0.0001, Cohen's d = 0.36); scores also improved for the B-IPQ subscales Coherence, Concern, Emotional Response, Timeline, Treatment Control, and Identity and the PCS. There were no changes in the other outcomes. Surgical patients improved on the B-IPQ subscales Treatment Control and Timeline, while nonsurgical patients did not. Conclusions: Illness perception and pain catastrophizing improved following hand surgeon consultation, suggesting that clinicians may actively influence the patients' mindset during consultations, and that they may try to enhance this effect to improve outcomes. Furthermore, surgical patients improved more in illness perceptions, indicating that nonsurgical patients may benefit from a more targeted strategy for changing mindset.</p

Multiple Compression Syndromes of the Same Upper Extremity: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Treatment Outcomes of Concomitant Treatment

Purpose: Multiple nerve compression syndromes can co-occur. Little is known about this coexistence, especially about risk factors and surgical outcomes. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the prevalence of multiple nerve compression syndromes in the same arm in a surgical cohort and determine risk factors. Additionally, the surgical outcomes of concomitant treatment were studied. Methods: The prevalence of surgically treated multiple nerve compression syndromes within one year was assessed using a review of patients’ electronic records. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, and baseline scores of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire were considered as risk factors. To determine the treatment outcomes of simultaneous treatment, patients who underwent concomitant carpal tunnel release (CTR) and cubital tunnel release (CubTR) were selected. The treatment outcomes were Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire scores at intake and at 3 and 6 months after the surgery, satisfaction 6 months after the surgery, and return to work within the first year. Results: A total of 7,867 patients underwent at least one nerve decompression between 2011 and 2021. Of these patients, 2.9% underwent multiple decompressions for the same upper extremity within one year. The risk factors for this were severe symptoms, younger age, and smoking. Furthermore, the treatment outcomes of concomitant CTR and CubTR did not differ from those of CubTR alone. The median time to return to work after concomitant treatment was 6 weeks. Patients who underwent CTR or CubTR alone returned to work after 4 weeks. Conclusions: Approximately 3% of the patients who underwent surgical treatment for nerve compression syndrome underwent decompression for another nerve within 1 year. Patients who report severe symptoms at intake, are younger, or smoke are at a greater risk. Patients with carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome may benefit from simultaneous decompression. The time to return to work may be less than if they underwent decompressions in separate procedures, whereas their surgical outcomes are comparable with those of CubTR alone. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic IV

Factors associated with return to work after open reinsertion of the triangular fibrocartilage

The aim of this study was to assess return to work (RTW) after open Triangular Fibrocartilage Complex (TFCC) reinsertion. RTW after open surgery for TFCC injury was assessed by questionnaires at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-operatively. Median RTW time was assessed on inverted Kaplan–Meier curves and hazard ratios were calculated with Cox regression models. 310 patients with a mean age of 38 years were included. By 1 year, 91% of the patients had returned to work, at a median 12 weeks (25%–75%: 6–20 weeks). Light physical labor (HR 3.74) was associated with RTW within the first 15 weeks; this association altered from 23 weeks onward: light (HR 0.59) or moderate physical labor (HR 0.25) was associated with lower RTW rates. Patients with poorer preoperative Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) total score returned to work later (HR 0.91 per 10 points). Overall cost of loss of productivity per patient was €13,588. In the first year after open TFCC reinsertion, 91% of the patients returned to work, including 50% within 12 weeks. Factors associated with RTW were age, gender, work intensity, and PRWE score at baseline

Prognostic Factors in Open Triangular Fibrocartilage Complex (TFCC) Repair

Purpose: Patients with triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) injury report ulnar-sided wrist pain and impaired function. Open TFCC repair aims to improve the condition of these patients. Patients have shown reduction in pain and improvement in function at 12 months after surgery; however, results are highly variable. The purpose of this study was to relate patient (eg, age and sex), disease (eg, trauma history and arthroscopic findings), and surgery factors (type of bone anchor) associated with pain and functional outcomes at 12 months after surgery. Methods: This study included patients who underwent an open TFCC repair between December 2011 and December 2018 in various Xpert Clinics in the Netherlands. All patients were asked to complete Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) questionnaires at baseline as well as at 12 months after surgery. Patient, disease, and surgery factors were extracted from digital patient records. All factors were analyzed by performing a multivariable hierarchical linear regression. Results: We included 274 patients who had received open TFCC repair and completed PRWE questionnaires. Every extra month of symptoms before surgery was correlated with an increase of 0.14 points on the PRWE total score at 12 months after surgery. In addition, an increase of 0.28 points in the PRWE total score at 12 months was seen per extra point of PRWE total score at baseline. Conclusions: Increased preoperative pain, less preoperative function, and a longer duration of complaints are factors that were associated with more pain and less function at 12 months after open surgery for TFCC. This study arms surgeons with data to predict outcomes for patients undergoing open TFCC repair. Type of study/level of evidence: Prognostic II.</p