Responsiveness of specific and generic patient-reported outcome measures in patients with plantar fasciopathy

被引:2
作者
Heide, Marte [1 ,2 ]
Mork, Marianne [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Hoksrud, Aasne Fenne [4 ]
Brox, Jens Ivar [1 ,2 ]
Roe, Cecilie [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Oslo, Inst Clin Med, Fac Med, Oslo, Norway
[2] Oslo Univ Hosp, Dept Phys Med & Rehabil, Nydalen, Norway
[3] Oslo Univ Hosp, Div Clin Neurosci, Res & Commun Unit Musculoskeletal Hlth FORMI, Oslo, Norway
[4] Norwegian Olymp & Paralymp Comm & Confederat Sport, Oslo, Norway
关键词
Plantar fasciopathy; patient-reported outcome measures; responsiveness; minimal important change; foot function index revised short form; numeric rating scale; RAND-12 health status inventory; HEALTH-STATUS; FOOT; PAIN; TAXONOMY; VALIDITY; SCALES; SF-12;
D O I
10.1080/09638288.2023.2267438
中图分类号
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号
100215 ;
摘要
Purpose: To evaluate and compare responsiveness characteristics for the Foot Function Index revised short form (FFI-RS), RAND-12 Health Status Inventory (RAND-12), and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), in patients with plantar fasciopathy receiving non-surgical treatment. Materials and methods: This study was conducted on a sub-group of patients from an ongoing randomised controlled trial. One-hundred fifteen patients were included. The patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were applied at baseline and after 6 months. Responsiveness was calculated using standardised response mean and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. ROC curves were used to compute the minimal important change (MIC) for the outcome measures. Results: The region specific FFI-RS had best responsiveness and the NRS at rest had lowest responsiveness. Conclusion: FFI-RS were marginally more responsive than the other PROMs. Responsiveness and MIC estimates should be regarded as indicative rather than fixed estimates. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION The region-specific Foot Function Index Revised Short Form could, based on responsiveness perspectives, be recommended as an outcome measurement for patients with plantar fasciopathy. Responsiveness and minimal important change estimates are indicative and should be interpreted with caution.
引用
收藏
页码:4300 / 4306
页数:7
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]   A taxonomy for responsiveness [J].
Beaton, DE ;
Bombardier, C ;
Katz, JN ;
Wright, JG .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2001, 54 (12) :1204-1217
[2]   Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare [J].
Black, Nick .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 346
[3]   Responsiveness of general health status in chronic low back pain: a comparison of the COOP Charts and the SF-36 [J].
Bronfort, G ;
Bouter, LM .
PAIN, 1999, 83 (02) :201-209
[4]   Theoretical model and Rasch analysis to develop a revised Foot Function Index [J].
Budiman-Mak, Elly ;
Conrad, Kendon ;
Stuck, Rodney ;
Matters, Michael .
FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL, 2006, 27 (07) :519-527
[5]   A review of the foot function index and the foot function index - revised [J].
Budiman-Mak, Elly ;
Conrad, Kendon J. ;
Mazza, Jessica ;
Stuck, Rodney M. .
JOURNAL OF FOOT AND ANKLE RESEARCH, 2013, 6
[6]   A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: Is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system? [J].
Button, G ;
Pinney, S .
FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL, 2004, 25 (08) :521-525
[7]   Truthfulness in patient-reported outcomes: factors affecting patients' responses and impact on data quality [J].
Chang, Eric M. ;
Gillespie, Erin F. ;
Shaverdian, Narek .
PATIENT-RELATED OUTCOME MEASURES, 2019, 10 :171-186
[8]  
Clayton, 2013, CUTPT STATA MODULE E
[9]  
Cohen J., 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, DOI 10.4324/9780203771587
[10]  
Copay AG, 2018, JBJS REV, V6, DOI 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.17.00160