Pinheiro Laura C, Callahan Leigh F, Cleveland Rebecca J, Edwards Lloyd J, Reeve Bryce B
From the Department of Health Policy and Management, and Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; School of Medicine, Thurston Arthritis Research Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.L.C. Pinheiro, MPH, Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; L.F. Callahan, PhD, School of Medicine, Thurston Arthritis Research Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; R.J. Cleveland, PhD, School of Medicine, Thurston Arthritis Research Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; L.J. Edwards, PhD, Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; B.B. Reeve, PhD, Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
J Rheumatol. 2016 Jan;43(1):131-7. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.150432. Epub 2015 Dec 1.
To evaluate the association between patient-reported outcome (PRO) and performance-based (PB) measures of physical functioning (PF) among individuals with self-identified arthritis to inform decisions of which to use when evaluating the effectiveness of a physical activity intervention.
Secondary data analysis of a nonrandomized 2-arm pre-post community trial of 462 individuals who self-identified as having arthritis and participated in the Walk with Ease (WWE) intervention. Two PRO and 8 PB assessments were collected at baseline (preintervention) and at 6-week followup. We calculated correlations between PB and PRO measures, assessed how measures identified changes in PF from baseline to followup, and compared PRO and PB measures to arthritis symptoms of pain, stiffness, and fatigue.
Strength of correlations between PB and PRO measures varied depending on the PB measure, ranging from 0.21 to 0.54. PRO and PB measures identified PF improvements from baseline to followup, but none showed significant differences between the 2 WWE modalities (instructor-led or self-directed groups). Correlations with arthritis symptoms were stronger for PRO (0.30-0.46) than PB measures (0.03-0.31).
PRO measures may provide us with insights into aspects of PF that are not identified by PB measures alone. Use of PRO measures allows patients to communicate their perceptions of PF, which may provide a more accurate representation of overall PF. Our study does not suggest abandoning the use of PB measures to characterize PF in patients with self-identified arthritis, but recommends that PRO measures may serve as complementary or surrogate endpoints for some studies.
评估自我认定患有关节炎的个体中,患者报告结局(PRO)与基于表现的身体功能(PF)测量指标之间的关联,为评估体育活动干预效果时选择使用何种指标提供决策依据。
对一项非随机双臂社区前后对照试验的二次数据分析,该试验纳入了462名自我认定患有关节炎并参与“轻松步行”(WWE)干预的个体。在基线(干预前)和6周随访时收集了两项PRO评估和八项PB评估。我们计算了PB和PRO指标之间的相关性,评估了这些指标如何识别从基线到随访期间PF的变化,并将PRO和PB指标与疼痛、僵硬和疲劳等关节炎症状进行了比较。
PB和PRO指标之间的相关性强度因PB指标而异,范围从0.21至0.54。PRO和PB指标均识别出从基线到随访期间PF有所改善,但在两种WWE模式(指导员指导组或自主指导组)之间均未显示出显著差异。与关节炎症状的相关性,PRO(0.30 - 0.46)比PB指标(0.03 - 0.31)更强。
PRO指标可能为我们提供仅靠PB指标无法识别的PF方面的见解。使用PRO指标能让患者传达他们对PF的感知,这可能更准确地反映整体PF。我们的研究并非建议放弃使用PB指标来描述自我认定患有关节炎患者的PF,而是建议PRO指标可作为某些研究的补充或替代终点。