Centre for Musculoskeletal Outcomes Research (CMOR), Department of Surgical Sciences, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Department of Physiotherapy, Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dhulikhel, Nepal.
Qual Life Res. 2021 Feb;30(2):613-628. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02640-0. Epub 2020 Sep 23.
The Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) is a routinely used measure of physical function with a 0-10 response scale. We aimed to develop verbal response options for the PSFS, pre-test it for use in a multilingual, low-literacy country- Nepal, and compare preference and error rates between numeric and verbal scale. We hypothesized that a verbal scale would be preferred by respondents and yield fewer errors.
We interviewed 42 individuals with musculoskeletal, neurological, and cardiopulmonary conditions to understand how people describe varying levels of physical ability. Transcripts were thematically analyzed, and through consensus, we developed two sets of verbal responses for the PSFS. Next, we pre-tested the scales on an additional 119 respondents following which participants were asked to specify their preferred scale. Error rates were analyzed retrospectively using pre-specified criteria.
Participants described their ability in terms of the quality (95%) and the quantity of task performance (88%). Although the verbal scales were preferred over the numeric scale (50% versus 12%), there was no significant difference in error rates between numeric (34%) and verbal scales (32% and 36%). Higher error rates were associated with greater age, fewer years of education, and inexperience with numeric scales.
Despite a higher preference for verbal scale, 1 out of 3 patients made errors in using the PSFS, even with an interview format. The error rates were higher among participants with low literacy. The findings raise questions about the utility of PROMs in countries with low literacy rates.
患者特定功能量表(PSFS)是一种常用的身体功能测量方法,采用 0-10 的反应量表。我们旨在为 PSFS 开发口头反应选项,在多语言、低识字率的国家-尼泊尔进行预测试,并比较数字和口头量表的偏好和错误率。我们假设口头量表将更受受访者欢迎,并产生更少的错误。
我们采访了 42 名患有肌肉骨骼、神经和心肺疾病的患者,以了解人们如何描述不同程度的身体能力。对转录本进行了主题分析,并通过共识,我们为 PSFS 开发了两套口头反应。接下来,我们在另外 119 名受访者中进行了预测试,然后要求参与者指定他们更喜欢的量表。使用预设标准回顾性分析错误率。
参与者根据任务执行的质量(95%)和数量(88%)来描述他们的能力。尽管口头量表比数字量表更受欢迎(50%对 12%),但数字量表(34%)和口头量表(32%和 36%)之间的错误率没有显著差异。更高的错误率与年龄较大、受教育年限较少和缺乏数字量表经验有关。
尽管口头量表的偏好更高,但即使采用访谈形式,仍有 1/3 的患者在使用 PSFS 时出错。在识字率较低的参与者中,错误率更高。这些发现引发了关于在识字率较低的国家使用 PROM 的实用性的问题。