University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, USA.
Hand (N Y). 2020 Nov;15(6):771-775. doi: 10.1177/1558944719831345. Epub 2019 Feb 28.
There is a concern that patients may answer patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires differently depending on the purpose-clinical care or research (eg, "Hawthorne effect"). We sought to determine whether Patient-Reported Outcomes Management Information System (PROMIS) scores differ at the same clinic visit based on whether a patient was completing the PRO tool for study or clinical care purposes. Patients presenting to one surgeon at an academic medical center hand clinic were asked to complete PROMIS Physical Function (PF) and Pain Interference (PI) questionnaires as part of routine care. Those diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome from February 2015 to April 2017 were then asked to participate in a clinical research project, which had them complete PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI again. Data from those who completed both routine and research PROs at each visit were compared. Between the 2 settings, test-retest reliability was determined using Pearson correlation coefficients (), and internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach α. A total of 128 unique office visits representing 67 patients fit our inclusion criteria. There was a strong correlation between PROMIS PF and PI in the research and patient care setting (PF: = 0.82, < .01; PI: = 0.83, < .01). Both domains had a Cronbach α of 0.90. The PROMIS PF scores were not different between the 2 groups ( = .19), but the PROMIS PI scores were slightly different ( < .01). Patients appear to be consistent when completing PROMIS for both clinical care and research, supporting the idea that data obtained in either setting are generalizable and appropriate for research purposes.
人们担心患者在回答患者报告的结果（PRO）问卷时可能会因目的（临床护理或研究）而异（例如“霍桑效应”）。我们试图确定患者报告的结局管理信息系统（PROMIS）评分是否因患者完成 PRO 工具的目的（研究或临床护理）而在同一就诊时有所不同。在学术医疗中心手诊所就诊的患者被要求填写 PROMIS 身体机能（PF）和疼痛干扰（PI）问卷，作为常规护理的一部分。那些在 2015 年 2 月至 2017 年 4 月期间被诊断为腕管综合征的患者被要求参与一项临床研究项目，再次填写 PROMIS PF 和 PROMIS PI。比较了每位患者在每次就诊时同时完成常规和研究 PRO 的数据。在这两种情况下，使用 Pearson 相关系数（）确定了测试-重测可靠性，使用 Cronbach α 评估了内部一致性。共有 128 个独特的门诊就诊，代表 67 名患者符合我们的纳入标准。在研究和患者护理环境中，PROMIS PF 和 PI 之间存在很强的相关性（PF：= 0.82，<0.01；PI：= 0.83，<0.01）。这两个领域的 Cronbach α 均为 0.90。这两个组之间的 PROMIS PF 评分没有差异（= 0.19），但 PROMIS PI 评分略有不同（<0.01）。患者在为临床护理和研究完成 PROMIS 时似乎保持一致，这支持了在任何环境中获得的数据都具有普遍性且适用于研究目的的观点。
