Suppr超能文献

QuickDASH PROM 能否通过先完成仪器上的任务来改变?

Can the QuickDASH PROM be Altered by First Completing the Tasks on the Instrument?

机构信息

L. M. Shapiro, S. L. Eppler, R. N. Kamal, Stanford University, VOICES Health Policy Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford, CA, USA A. H. S. Harris , Stanford School of Medicine/VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Department of Surgery, Stanford, CA, USA.

出版信息

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Sep;477(9):2062-2068. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000731.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Health systems and payers use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to inform quality improvement and value-based payment models. Although it is known that psychosocial factors and priming influence PROMs, we sought to determine the effect of having patients complete functional tasks before completing the PROM questionnaire, which has not been extensively evaluated.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Will QuickDASH scores change after patients complete the tasks on the questionnaire compared with baseline QuickDASH scores? (2) Will the change in QuickDASH score in an intervention (task completion) group be different than that of a control group? (3) Will a higher proportion of patients in the intervention group than those in the control group improve their QuickDASH scores by greater than a minimally clinically important difference (MCID) of 14 points?

METHODS

During a 2-month period, 140 patients presented at our clinic with a hand or upper-extremity problem. We approached patients who spoke and read English and were 18 years old or older. One hundred thirty-two (94%) patients met the inclusion criteria and agreed to participate (mean ± SD age, 52 ± 17 years; 60 men [45%], 72 women [55%]; 112 in the intervention group [85%] and 20 in the control group [15%]). First, all patients who completed the QuickDASH PROM (at baseline) were recruited for participation. Intervention patients completed the functional tasks on the QuickDASH and completed a followup QuickDASH. Control patients were recruited and enrolled after the intervention group completed the study. Participants in the control group completed the QuickDASH at baseline and a followup QuickDASH 5 minutes after (the time required to complete the functional tasks). Paired and unpaired t-tests were used to evaluate the null hypotheses that (1) QuickDASH scores for the intervention group would not change after the tasks on the instrument were completed and (2) the change in QuickDASH score in the intervention group would not be different than that of the control group (p < 0.05). To evaluate the clinical importance of the change in score after tasks were completed, we recorded the number of patients with a change greater than an MCID of 14 points on the QuickDASH. Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate the difference between groups in those reaching an MCID of 14.

RESULTS

In the intervention group, the QuickDASH score decreased after the intervention (39 ± 24 versus 25 ± 19; mean difference, -14 points [95% CI, 12 to 16]; p < 0.001). The change in QuickDASH scores was greater in the intervention group than that in the control group (-14 ± 11 versus -2 ± 9 [95% CI, -17 to -7]; p < 0.001). A larger proportion of patients in the intervention group than in the control group demonstrated an improvement in QuickDASH scores greater than the 14-point MCID ([43 of 112 [38%] versus two of 20 [10%]; odds ratio, 5.4 [95% CI, 1 to 24%]; p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Reported disability can be reduced, thereby improving PROMs, if patients complete QuickDASH tasks before completing the questionnaire. Modifiable factors that influence PROM scores and the context in which scores are measured should be analyzed before PROMs are broadly implemented into reimbursement models and quality measures for orthopaedic surgery. Standardizing PROM administration can limit the influence of context, such as task completion, on outcome scores and should be used in value-based payment models.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.

摘要

背景

医疗系统和支付方使用患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)来为质量改进和基于价值的支付模式提供信息。尽管已知心理社会因素和启动会影响 PROMs,但我们试图确定让患者在完成 PROM 问卷之前完成功能任务对 PROMs 的影响,这尚未得到广泛评估。

问题/目的:(1)与基线 QuickDASH 评分相比,患者完成问卷上的任务后 QuickDASH 评分会发生变化吗?(2)干预组(任务完成)和对照组之间的 QuickDASH 评分变化是否不同?(3)干预组中比对照组有更多的患者通过大于 14 分的最小临床重要差异(MCID)来改善他们的 QuickDASH 评分吗?

方法

在两个月的时间里,我们的诊所接待了 140 名手部或上肢有问题的患者。我们接触的是会说英语和阅读英语且年龄在 18 岁或以上的患者。132 名(94%)患者符合纳入标准并同意参与(平均年龄 ± 标准差,52 ± 17 岁;60 名男性[45%],72 名女性[55%];112 名在干预组[85%],20 名在对照组[15%])。首先,所有完成 QuickDASH PROM(基线)的患者都被招募参与。干预组患者完成了 QuickDASH 上的功能任务,并完成了后续的 QuickDASH。对照组患者在干预组完成研究后招募和登记。对照组患者在基线时完成 QuickDASH,并在 5 分钟后(完成功能任务所需的时间)完成后续的 QuickDASH。采用配对和非配对 t 检验来评估以下零假设:(1)干预组完成仪器上的任务后,QuickDASH 评分不会发生变化;(2)干预组 QuickDASH 评分的变化与对照组不会不同(p < 0.05)。为了评估完成任务后评分变化的临床重要性,我们记录了 QuickDASH 评分变化大于 14 分的 MCID 的患者数量。采用 Fisher 确切概率法来评估两组之间达到 14 分 MCID 的差异。

结果

在干预组中,干预后 QuickDASH 评分下降(39 ± 24 与 25 ± 19;平均差异,-14 分[95%CI,12 至 16];p < 0.001)。干预组 QuickDASH 评分的变化大于对照组(-14 ± 11 与-2 ± 9 [95%CI,-17 至-7];p < 0.001)。与对照组相比,干预组中有更多的患者 QuickDASH 评分改善大于 14 分的 MCID([43 名患者中有 112 名[38%],20 名患者中有 2 名[10%];比值比,5.4 [95%CI,1 至 24%];p = 0.019)。

结论

如果患者在完成问卷之前完成 QuickDASH 任务,报告的残疾程度可以降低,从而改善 PROMs。在广泛将 PROMs 纳入骨科手术的报销模式和质量衡量标准之前,应分析影响 PROM 评分的可改变因素和评分测量的背景。应使用标准化的 PROM 管理来限制完成任务等环境因素对结果评分的影响,并应将其用于基于价值的支付模式。

证据水平

二级,治疗性研究。

相似文献

1
Can the QuickDASH PROM be Altered by First Completing the Tasks on the Instrument?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Sep;477(9):2062-2068. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000731.
2
What Is the Clinical Benefit of Common Orthopaedic Procedures as Assessed by the PROMIS Versus Other Validated Outcomes Tools?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022 Sep 1;480(9):1672-1681. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002241. Epub 2022 May 10.
3
The Patient Perspective on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Elective Hand Surgery: A Convergent Mixed-Methods Analysis.
J Hand Surg Am. 2021 Feb;46(2):153.e1-153.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.09.008. Epub 2020 Nov 9.
5
There are Considerable Inconsistencies Among Minimum Clinically Important Differences in TKA: A Systematic Review.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2023 Jan 1;481(1):63-80. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002440. Epub 2022 Oct 5.
7
What Are the Minimal and Substantial Improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR Versions After Total Joint Replacement?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Dec;476(12):2432-2441. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000456.
8
How do Patient-reported Outcome Scores in International Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Registries Compare?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022 Oct 1;480(10):1884-1896. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002306. Epub 2022 Jul 8.
10
Performing region-specific tasks does not improve lower extremity patient-reported outcome scores.
Arthroplasty. 2024 Jul 7;6(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s42836-024-00261-3.

引用本文的文献

2
Performing region-specific tasks does not improve lower extremity patient-reported outcome scores.
Arthroplasty. 2024 Jul 7;6(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s42836-024-00261-3.
3
A new self-assessment tool following shoulder stabilization surgery, the auto-Walch and auto-Rowe questionnaires.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023 Jul;31(7):2593-2601. doi: 10.1007/s00167-022-07290-y. Epub 2022 Dec 31.
4
A Comparison of Acute Versus Chronic Thumb Ulnar Collateral Ligament Surgery Using Primary Suture Anchor Repair and Local Soft Tissue Advancement.
J Hand Surg Glob Online. 2022 Mar 27;4(3):141-146. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2022.02.008. eCollection 2022 May.
5
What factors are associated with perceived disease onset in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis?
J Orthop. 2021 Jul 14;26:88-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2021.07.013. eCollection 2021 Jul-Aug.
6
Evaluation is treatment for low back pain.
J Man Manip Ther. 2021 Feb;29(1):4-13. doi: 10.1080/10669817.2020.1730056. Epub 2020 Feb 24.
7
CORR Insights®: Can the QuickDASH PROM be Altered by First Completing the Tasks on the Instrument?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Sep;477(9):2069-2070. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000776.

本文引用的文献

1
Value-based Healthcare: Measuring What Matters-Engaging Surgeons to Make Measures Meaningful and Improve Clinical Practice.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Sep;476(9):1704-1706. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000406.
2
Impact of Depression on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Lumbar Spine Decompression.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 Mar 15;43(6):434-439. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002329.
3
Factors That Affect Outcome Following Total Joint Arthroplasty: a Review of the Recent Literature.
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017 Sep;10(3):346-355. doi: 10.1007/s12178-017-9421-8.
4
The Influence of Psychological Factors on the Michigan Hand Questionnaire.
Hand (N Y). 2017 Mar;12(2):197-201. doi: 10.1177/1558944716642765. Epub 2016 Jul 8.
5
Association between psychological health and wound complications after surgery.
Br J Surg. 2017 May;104(6):769-776. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10474. Epub 2017 Feb 14.
7
Can Preoperative Patient-reported Outcome Measures Be Used to Predict Meaningful Improvement in Function After TKA?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Jan;475(1):149-157. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4770-y.
8
Influence of Priming on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Psychosomatics. 2016 Jan-Feb;57(1):47-56. doi: 10.1016/j.psym.2015.09.005. Epub 2015 Oct 1.
10
The impact of preoperative depression on quality of life outcomes after lumbar surgery.
Spine J. 2015 Jan 1;15(1):58-64. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.06.020. Epub 2014 Jul 4.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验