The problem with measuring patient perceptions of outcome with existing outcome measures in foot and ankle surgery

被引:50
|
作者
Parker, J
Nester, CJ
Long, AF
Barrie, J
机构
[1] Univ Salford, Ctr Rehabil & Human Performance Res, Salford M6 6PU, Lancs, England
[2] Univ Salford, Hlth Care Practice R&D Unit, Salford M6 6PU, Lancs, England
[3] Blackburn Royal Infirm, Dept Orthopaed, Blackburn, Lancs, England
关键词
patient perceptions; outcome measurement; surgery; validity; reliability; responsiveness;
D O I
10.1177/107110070302400109
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
Quality outcome measures are the cornerstone of clinical research. A review of outcome measures used in foot and ankle surgery research reveals that the issues of validity, reliability and responsiveness of outcome measures have not been addressed. Most reports in the literature have attempted to evaluate patient perceptions of outcome following foot surgery. Underlying the many difficulties with these outcome measures is a lack of understanding of what patients perceive to be important in terms of outcome. Consequently none of the existing outcome measures can claim to be valid measures of patient perceptions of outcome, as there has been no research uncovering these perceptions. In addition, measures of general health status and quality of life in relation to outcome of foot and ankle surgery have been largely ignored to date.
引用
收藏
页码:56 / 60
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) During Early Recovery After Ankle Fracture
    Larsen, Peter
    Al-Bayati, Mohammed
    Elsoe, Rasmus
    FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL, 2021, 42 (09) : 1179 - 1184
  • [42] Development of the patient-based outcome instrument for foot and ankle: part 2: results from the second field survey: validity of the outcome instrument for the foot and ankle version 2
    Niki, Hisateru
    Tatsunami, Shinobu
    Haraguchi, Naoki
    Aoki, Takafumi
    Okuda, Ryuzo
    Suda, Yasunori
    Takao, Masato
    Tanaka, Yasuhito
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SCIENCE, 2011, 16 (05) : 556 - 564
  • [43] Patient reported outcome measures in meniscal tears and arthroscopic meniscectomy: The value of outcome score prediction
    Al-Dadah, Oday
    Shepstone, Lee
    Donell, Simon T.
    ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH, 2021, 107 (03)
  • [44] A quantitative method for measuring the relationship between an objective endpoint and patient reported outcome measures
    Ahn, Chul
    Fang, Xin
    Silverman, Phyllis
    Zhang, Zhiwei
    PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (10):
  • [45] Patient-reported outcome measures after periodontal surgery
    Mounssif, Ilham
    Bentivogli, Valentina
    Rendon, Alexandra
    Gissi, Davide B.
    Maiani, Francesco
    Mazzotti, Claudio
    Mele, Monica
    Sangiorgi, Matteo
    Zucchelli, Giovanni
    Stefanini, Martina
    CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2023, 27 (12) : 7715 - 7724
  • [46] An evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures in lower limb reconstruction surgery
    Burton, M.
    Walters, S. J.
    Saleh, M.
    Brazier, J. E.
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2012, 21 (10) : 1731 - 1743
  • [47] Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Breast Cancer Surgery
    Kim, Minji
    Graziano, Francis D.
    Tadros, Audree B.
    Allen Jr, Robert J.
    Nelson, Jonas A.
    CURRENT SURGERY REPORTS, 2024, 12 (05) : 67 - 75
  • [48] Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS)
    van den Akker-Scheek, Inge
    Seldentuis, Arnoud
    Reininga, Inge H. F.
    Stevens, Martin
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2013, 14
  • [49] Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS)
    Inge van den Akker-Scheek
    Arnoud Seldentuis
    Inge HF Reininga
    Martin Stevens
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 14
  • [50] Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in hyperhidrosis: a systematic review
    Gabes, Michaela
    Knuettel, Helge
    Kann, Gesina
    Tischer, Christina
    Apfelbacher, Christian J.
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2022, 31 (03) : 671 - 686