Correction: Validation and Implementation of 4-domain Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Tailored for Orthopedic Sports Medicine

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sérgio Rocha Piedade ◽  
Mark R. Hutchinson ◽  
Daniel Miranda Ferreira ◽  
Mario Ferretti ◽  
Nicola Maffulli
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported

scholarly journals VALIDATION OF A COMPUTER-BASED SYSTEM FOR THE COLLECTION OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN PEDIATRIC SPORTS MEDICINE

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0003
Author(s):  
Meagan J. Sabatino ◽  
Catherine V. Gans ◽  
Aaron J. Zynda ◽  
Chan-Hee Jo ◽  
Jane Chung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Electronic Format ◽  
Pediatric Sports Medicine ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Activity Scale ◽  
Tegner Activity Scale

Background: In orthopedics, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become popularized due to an increase in patient-centered research and pay for performance reimbursement models. Most pediatric PROMs have been utilized and validated in paper format. However, the use of a computer-based system may improve patient and physician efficiency, decrease cost, ensure completion, provide instantaneous information, and minimize inconvenience. The purpose of the study is to validate the use, evaluate patient satisfaction, and review differences of electronic compared to paper PROMs in a pediatric sports medicine practice. Methods: New patients between 12 – 19 years of age with a knee-related primary complaint were identified prior to their appointment. Patients were then randomized into two groups to complete standard clinical PROMs; including the Pedi-IKDC, HSS Pedi-FABS, Tegner Activity Scale, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and PedsQL-Teen. Group 1 completed paper forms followed by electronic, while Group 2 received the electronic format followed by paper, with a 10-minute break between formats in each group. Following the completion of PROMs, subjects completed a satisfaction survey. A Pearson’s correlation was used to calculate the association between the measures and a paired t-test to compare means between electronic and paper forms. Reliability analysis was conducted using an ICC calculation. Results: 87 subjects were enrolled with one excluded due to incomplete PROMs, for a total of 86. 54 subjects were female and 32 were male with an average age of 14.3 years (range 12-18). A high degree of reliability was found when comparing the paper and electronic versions of the Pedi-IKDC, HSS Pedi-FABS, PedsQL 13-18 and the Tegner activity scale (Figure 1). Differences were noted between the VAS scores, with paper scores being significantly higher than electronic (5.3 vs 4.6, p<0.001). Excluding the 10-minute break, it took subjects an average of 21.3 minutes to complete the PROMs. Although not significant, electronic PROMs took less time than paper on average (10.0 min vs 11.2 min, p=0.096). All subjects endorsed that PROMs captured on paper were the same as electronic with 69.8% of subjects preferring the electronic PROMs. 67.4% of subjects reported they felt the electronic format was faster, with only 5.8% of patients reporting the electronic forms were hard or confusing. 93.0% stated they would complete forms at home prior to appointments if it were an option and 91.8% were not concerned about the safety/privacy of electronic forms. Conclusion/Significance: PROMs captured electronically were reliable and valid when compared to paper, with differences noted only on the VAS. Electronic PROMs may be quicker, will not require manual scoring, and are preferred by patients. Electronic PROMs will improve the clinician’s ability to collect complete and validated data while reducing the burden on the clinical staff and patients. [Figure: see text]

scholarly journals THE USE OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES BY PRIMARY MEDICAL PROVIDERS IN THE PEDIATRIC SPORTS POPULATION

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0010
Author(s):  
Jamila N. Aberdeen ◽  
Rebecca K. Frank Burnett ◽  
Heather F. Stewart ◽  
Elliot Greenberg
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Medical Providers ◽  
Scale Selection ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeons ◽  
Body Regions ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Text Figure

Background: Patient reported outcome measures (PROs) allow medical providers to assess functional limitations, track progress, and evaluate outcomes. Although progress has been made developing and validating PROs, much of this work has been done within the adult population, and only a limited number of pediatric specific PROs exist. The use of PROs within pediatric orthopedics remains unstudied. The purposes of this study are to evaluate the current use of PROs within pediatric sports medicine and determine how the information from PROs is used for treatment decisions. Methods: An online email survey was sent to members of the Pediatric Research in Sports Medicine Society (PRiSM) using REDCap™. The survey was developed and pilot tested by 4 physical therapists and 3 orthopedic surgeons. The final survey consisted of 24 multiple choice questions, designed to garner information relative to provider use of PROs. Some questions allowed free text for answers not previously-defined. The survey took 3-5 minutes to complete and was open for an 8 week period. Although PRiSM is a multi-disciplinary society, only data from primary medical providers (PMPs -orthopedic surgeons, sports medicine primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants) was utilized. Descriptive statistics and frequency tallies were used to analyze the data. Results: Seventy-two surveys were used for analysis; a response rate of 45% given total membership. The sample distribution can be seen in Table 1. The use of PROs was reported by 57% (n=41) of PMPs. PROs administration occurred at post-operative encounters (83%, n=34), new patient visits (73%, n=30), pre-op visits 44% (n=18), when there is a change in status/new injury 27% (n=11), and every visit 12% (n=5). The majority of information from PROs was used for research (85%, n=35), assess response to treatment (51%), inform clinical prognosis (37%) and guide clinical decisions (32%). There were no PMPs that reported distributing PROs to satisfy insurance requirements. PRO use was reported at the highest frequency for knee (98%, n=40) and shoulder (68%, n=28) injuries. There was variability in specific PRO selection with 80%, 56% and 34% using the Pedi-IKDC, IKDC, and KOOS, respectively. For the shoulder, the DASH and QuickDASH garnered the highest use (32% each) however variability in scale selection persisted with 24% using “other” scales, including activity and fear avoidance scales. PRO use for the hip (41%), ankle (39%), back (20%) and neck (17%) were reported less frequently. (Figure 3 details scale specifics). Nearly half the sample (46%) reported using affective domain or quality of life scales like the Pedi-Fabs (24%) and ACL-RSI (17%) and PROMIS (12%). Interestingly, 43% (n=31/41) of the sample indicated they do not use PROs, with 39% of these respondents citing inadequate time as the primary barrier to use, 23% were unsure of which measure to use and 16% did not find them useful or relevant. Additional barriers are presented in Figure 4. Conclusions: Only 57% of PMPs are using PROs within their practice. The information from PROs is largely used to perform research and demonstrate the effectiveness of treatment. Interestingly, no one used PROs to satisfy insurance requirements. Within all body regions, there is little consistency in scale selection. A large number of respondents indicated that PROs for hip, ankle and spine were “not applicable” to their practice, making generalization of this data difficult. Although it cannot be determined why there was such a low percentage of PRO use for these body regions, the authors feel this may be related to a small volume of patients seen with diagnoses of these regions among our sample or perceptions that no existing scale is useful for this population. It was surprising that over 40% of the sample did not use PROs in their practice. Among those respondents, inadequate time for administration and indecision regarding which measure to use, were indicated as the greatest barriers to use. Clinical Relevance: Healthcare policy within the United States is undergoing a transformation towards a value-based system, under which PROs will be heavily relied upon to demonstrate effectiveness of treatment and help determine reimbursement; this transition has already occurred in adults/the Medicare system. Our results show that although 85% of PMPs use PROs for research purposes, the use of PROs in the clinical setting is low. Given the changing payment model and increased emphasis on patient-centered care, our results highlight the importance of integrating PROs into clinical practice and support the need for ongoing research related to the validation research and scale development as many of the scales have not been evaluated in pediatrics. Tables and Figures: [Table: see text][Figure: see text][Figure: see text][Figure: see text]

Age-Appropriate Pediatric Sports Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Their Psychometric Properties: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (13) ◽  
pp. 3270-3276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joash R. Suryavanshi ◽  
Rie Goto ◽  
Bridget Jivanelli ◽  
Jamila Aberdeen ◽  
Timothy Duer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Ankle Injuries ◽  
Physically Active ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Age Appropriate

Background: Phenomena including early sport specialization and year-round training and competition have contributed to an increase in pediatric sports injuries. There has been a concomitant increase in clinical studies focusing on physically active children and adolescents. These studies include investigations of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). While the use of PROMs in pediatric orthopaedics has been increasing, PROMs are often inappropriately applied to study populations for whom they are not specifically validated. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to establish a comprehensive list of pediatric- and adolescent-validated PROMs and catalog their psychometric properties as a resource for clinicians and researchers. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of articles in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library was performed to identify articles developing and validating PROMs appropriate for use in pediatric sports medicine research. The inclusion criteria were as follows: age <18 years, the use of surveys and questionnaires, and the presence of sports-related injuries. The psychometric properties of included PROMs were entered into an electronic database. Results: Our search strategy identified 14,708 unique articles, among which 139 studies (0.9%) were included in the final data analysis. Forty-seven distinct PROMs were identified, as well as 160 cross-cultural adaptations. While all identified PROMs were validated in physically active young participants, only 12 (26%) were specifically created initially for active children. Thirty (64%) PROMs were health-related quality-of-life measures; 13 (28%) were psychosocial measures; and 4 (9%) were activity scales. No studies validated PROMs for use with wrist/hand injuries, and only 1 PROM each was valid for hip, back/spinal, and foot/ankle injuries in pediatric sports. Conclusion: This systematic review yielded 47 unique PROMs reliable and valid for use in pediatric and adolescent sports medicine. This list will unify clinicians and researchers in using these age-appropriate measures while identifying areas that are still in need of appropriate PROMs for young athletes.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Adults with Hand Trauma: A Systematic Review

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (2-4) ◽  
pp. 145-157
Author(s):  
Daniel Alexander Waltho ◽  
Manraj Nirmal Kaur ◽  
Mary Ellen Gedye ◽  
Achilleas Thoma
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Hand Trauma ◽  
Patient Reported

Impact of Depression on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Lumbar Spine Decompression

Spine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 434-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert K. Merrill ◽  
Lukas P. Zebala ◽  
Colleen Peters ◽  
Sheeraz A. Qureshi ◽  
Steven J. McAnany
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported

Preoperative Opioid Use in Patients Undergoing Common Hand Surgeries

Hand ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 155894472097412
Author(s):  
Ali Aneizi ◽  
Dominique Gelmann ◽  
Dominic J. Ventimiglia ◽  
Patrick M. J. Sajak ◽  
Vidushan Nadarajah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Hand Surgery ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Information ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Opioid Users

Background: The objectives of this study were to determine the baseline patient characteristics associated with preoperative opioid use and to establish whether preoperative opioid use is associated with baseline patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing common hand surgeries. Methods: Patients undergoing common hand surgeries from 2015 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed from a prospective orthopedic registry at a single academic institution. Medical records were reviewed to determine whether patients were opioid users versus nonusers. On enrollment in the registry, patients completed 6 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains (Physical Function, Pain Interference, Fatigue, Social Satisfaction, Anxiety, and Depression), the Brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire (BMHQ), a surgical expectations questionnaire, and Numeric Pain Scale (NPS). Statistical analysis included multivariable regression to determine whether preoperative opioid use was associated with patient characteristics and preoperative scores on patient-reported outcome measures. Results: After controlling for covariates, an analysis of 353 patients (opioid users, n = 122; nonusers, n = 231) showed that preoperative opioid use was associated with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class (odds ratio [OR], 2.88), current smoking (OR, 1.91), and lower body mass index (OR, 0.95). Preoperative opioid use was also associated with significantly worse baseline PROMIS scores across 6 domains, lower BMHQ scores, and NPS hand scores. Conclusions: Preoperative opioid use is common in hand surgery patients with a rate of 35%. Preoperative opioid use is associated with multiple baseline patient characteristics and is predictive of worse baseline scores on patient-reported outcome measures. Future studies should determine whether such associations persist in the postoperative setting between opioid users and nonusers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document