Comparison of patient preferences and responsiveness among common patient-reported outcome measures for hand/wrist injuries or disorders

被引:3
|
作者
Chanthana, Phongniwath [1 ]
Atthakomol, Pichitchai [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Manosroi, Worapaka [3 ,4 ]
Wongpakaran, Tinakon [5 ]
Kraisarin, Jirachart [1 ]
Sananpanich, Kanit [1 ]
机构
[1] Chiang Mai Univ, Fac Med, Dept Orthopaed, Chiang Mai, Thailand
[2] Chiang Mai Univ, Musculoskeletal Sci & Translat Res Ctr, Chiang Mai, Thailand
[3] Chiang Mai Univ, Fac Med, Clin Epidemiol & Clin Stat Ctr, Chiang Mai, Thailand
[4] Chiang Mai Univ, Fac Med, Dept Internal Med, Div Endocrinol, Chiang Mai, Thailand
[5] Chiang Mai Univ, Fac Med, Dept Psychiat, Chiang Mai, Thailand
关键词
Patient-reported outcome measures; Patient preference; Responsiveness; Hand; wrist; Injuries; Disorders; HAND QUESTIONNAIRE; UPPER EXTREMITY; SHOULDER; ARM; DISABILITIES; EPIDEMIOLOGY; RELIABILITY; VALIDITY; SCALES; WRIST;
D O I
10.1186/s10195-022-00681-4
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were developed to examine patients' perceptions of functional health. Most studies compare the responsiveness of each type of questionnaire. However, reports of patient preferences among PROMs commonly used with patients with hand/wrist injuries or disorders are limited. This study aimed to compare patient preferences, factors associated with those preferences and responsiveness among the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ), Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) and EQ-5D in patients with hand/wrist injuries or disorders.Material and methods This retrospective cohort study collected data on 183 patients with hand/wrist injuries or diseases who had visited a hand/wrist outpatient clinic or were hospitalized for surgery between 2017 and 2020. Patients had to be at least 18 years old and able to complete the four questionnaires included in the study. The four PROMs (DASH, MHQ, PRWHE and EQ-5D) were administered to the patients prior to treatment. After completing the questionnaires, patients were asked to answer two open-ended questions regarding their preferences. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify factors related to patient preferences. Results are presented as the relative risk ratio (RRR). The standardized response mean (SRM) was used to evaluate questionnaire responsiveness.Results Of the 183 patients, most preferred the PRWHE questionnaire (n = 74, 41%), with the main reasons cited being "specific to injuries/diseases and reflects hand/wrist function (n = 23, 31%) " and "easy to complete (n = 22, 30%). " Sex was found to be associated with patient preference after adjusting for demographic data and reasons for choosing a PROM as confounders (RRR = 0.46, P value = 0.049). The PRWHE had the highest SRM, followed by DASH (0.92 and 0.88, respectively).Conclusions The PRWHE is the most preferred by patients and is the most responsive questionnaire. It is recommended for use in clinical practice in situations where a clinician would like to use only one PROM for evaluating patients with various types of hand/wrist problems.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of patient preferences and responsiveness among common patient-reported outcome measures for hand/wrist injuries or disorders
    Phongniwath Chanthana
    Pichitchai Atthakomol
    Worapaka Manosroi
    Tinakon Wongpakaran
    Jirachart Kraisarin
    Kanit Sananpanich
    Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 24
  • [2] Patient-reported outcome measures used for hand and wrist disorders: An overview of systematic reviews
    Ziebart, Christina
    Bobos, Pavlos
    Furtado, Rochelle
    Dabbagh, Armaghan
    MacDermid, Joy
    JOURNAL OF HAND THERAPY, 2023, 36 (03) : 719 - 729
  • [3] The availability of common patient-reported outcome measures in hand surgery across Europe
    Aman, Martin
    Pennekamp, Anna
    Prahm, Cosima
    Czarnecki, Piotr
    van der Heijden, Brigitte
    Harhaus, Leila
    JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-EUROPEAN VOLUME, 2024,
  • [4] Comprehensive Assessment of Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Hand and Wrist Conditions in Adults: A Scoping Review
    Iskander, S.
    Halbesma, G.
    Hoogbergen, M. M.
    Young-Afat, D.
    Veldhuizen, I. J.
    JPRAS OPEN, 2025, 43 : 475 - 490
  • [5] A psychometric comparison of patient-reported outcome measures used in pediatric hand therapy
    Dorich, Jenny M.
    Cornwall, Roger
    JOURNAL OF HAND THERAPY, 2020, 33 (04) : 477 - 483
  • [6] The Patient Perspective on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Elective Hand Surgery: A Convergent Mixed-Methods Analysis
    Shapiro, Lauren M.
    Eppler, Sara L.
    Roe, Allison K.
    Morris, Arden
    Kamal, Robin N.
    JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2021, 46 (02): : 153.e1 - 153.e11
  • [7] Do patient-reported outcome measures capture functioning aspects and environmental factors important to individuals with injuries or disorders of the hand?
    Coenen, Michaela
    Kus, Sandra
    Rudolf, Klaus-Dieter
    Mueller, Gertrud
    Berno, Stephanie
    Dereskewitz, Caroline
    MacDermid, Joy
    JOURNAL OF HAND THERAPY, 2013, 26 (04) : 332 - 342
  • [8] Responsiveness of specific and generic patient-reported outcome measures in patients with plantar fasciopathy
    Heide, Marte
    Mork, Marianne
    Hoksrud, Aasne Fenne
    Brox, Jens Ivar
    Roe, Cecilie
    DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION, 2024, 46 (18) : 4300 - 4306
  • [9] Comparison of Responsiveness of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Total Knee Arthroplasty
    Vogel, Nicole
    Kaelin, Raphael
    Rychen, Thomas
    Wendelspiess, Severin
    Muller-Gerbl, Magdalena
    Arnold, Markus P.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2024, 39 (06) : 1487 - 1495.e2
  • [10] Myotonic dystrophy patient preferences in patient-reported outcome measures
    Heatwole, Chad
    Johnson, Nicholas
    Dekdebrun, Jeanne
    Dilek, Nuran
    Eichinger, Kate
    Hilbert, James
    Luebbe, Elizabeth
    Martens, William
    Mcdermott, Michael P.
    Thornton, Charles
    Moxley, Richard
    MUSCLE & NERVE, 2018, 58 (01) : 49 - 55