Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Breast Implant Surgery: A Pilot Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (8) ◽  
pp. NP314-NP321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sze Ng ◽  
Andrea Pusic ◽  
Emily Parker ◽  
Swarna Vishwanath, ◽  
Rodney D Cooter ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The Breast-Q Implant Surveillance module (BREAST-Q IS) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that asks 5 questions on satisfaction (shape, feel, and rippling) and symptoms (pain and tightness) derived from the BREAST-Q. Objectives We aimed to pilot BREAST-Q IS on patients within the Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR), an opt-out clinical quality device registry, and explored Short Message Service (SMS) communication as a follow-up method. Methods Patients with a breast device surgery in the previous 10 to 15 months, age ≥18 years, with a mobile phone number, were invited to complete the 5-question PROM via SMS initially, followed by 3 phone call attempts if no response, an e-mail, and then a letter by post as a final engagement strategy. Results The study included 197 participants [breast augmentation (BA) = 118; breast reconstruction (BR) = 79]. Mean ± SD age was 40 ± 12 years (BA) and 44 ± 11 years (BR). Mean ± SD time since surgery was 414 ± 36 days (BA) and 413 ± 51 days (BR). The total response rate, including opt-outs, was 76%. Responses indicated that >90% of BA and >79% of BR were very or somewhat satisfied with shape, feel, and wrinkling; >70% of BA and >46% of BR reported no pain or tightness. Completion of survey via SMS was 51% (BA) and 55% (BR). Further responses were received by phone (25%, 26%), post (21%, 16%), and e-mail (3%, 3%). Conclusions This pilot demonstrated high levels of satisfaction and low levels of pain and tightness in patients with breast augmentation and breast reconstruction 1 year postoperatively. It also showed the effectiveness of our engagement strategy, which achieved a 76% response rate. Over 50% of respondents used SMS to reply to a 5-question PROM assessing long-term surgical outcomes. This engagement strategy will be used as BREAST-Q IS is rolled out nationally.

Author(s):  
Michelle Merenda ◽  
Swarna Vishwanath ◽  
Sze Ng ◽  
Emily Parker ◽  
Arul Ernest ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) are increasingly used in healthcare to assess outcomes. The BREAST-Q Implant Surveillance (BREAST-Q IS) is a 5-question Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) used by the Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR) to monitor the performance of breast devices. Validation of this tool is needed to assess its utility in this setting. Objectives The objective of our study was to assess the test-retest reliability of the BREAST-Q IS among breast implant recipients within a registry setting. Methods A test-retest reliability study was undertaken. Patients who had breast augmentation or breast reconstruction and registered with the ABDR were eligible to participate. Two hundred and fifty surveys were distributed. The BREAST-Q IS was administered to the same group of participants on two separate occasions with a 2-week test interval. Participants were divided into two groups, breast augmentation and breast reconstruction. A weighted kappa coefficient was calculated to assess the degree of test-retest reliability of the BREAST-Q IS. Results Two hundred and seven participants completed both tests. Response rate was 82% (n=113) for the breast augmentation group and 94% (n=94) for the breast reconstruction group. All 5 questions on the BREAST-Q IS obtained weighted kappa scores above 0.74 among both groups. Conclusions The BREAST-Q IS has good-to-excellent test-retest reliability for use among breast implant recipients in a registry setting. Further validation of the BREAST-Q IS will be required to establish the BREAST-Q IS as a valid and reliable PROM tool for breast implant recipients following breast device surgery.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 386-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. Davies ◽  
R. Macefield ◽  
K. Avery ◽  
J. M. Blazeby ◽  
S. Potter

Abstract Background Breast reconstruction (BR) is performed to improve outcomes for patients undergoing mastectomy. A recently developed core outcome set for BR includes six patient-reported outcomes that should be measured and reported in all future studies. It is vital that any instrument used to measure these outcomes as part of a core measurement set be robustly developed and validated so data are reliable and accurate. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the development and measurement properties of existing BR patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to inform instrument selection for future studies. Methods A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of development and validation studies of BR PROMs was conducted to assess their measurement properties. PROMs with adequate content validity were assessed using three steps: (1) the methodological quality of each identified study was assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist; (2) criteria were applied for assessing good measurement properties; and (3) evidence was summarized and the quality of evidence assessed using a modified GRADE approach. Results Fourteen articles reported the development and measurement properties of six PROMs. Of these, only three (BREAST-Q, BRECON-31, and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23) were considered to have adequate content validity and proceeded to full evaluation. This showed that all three PROMs had been robustly developed and validated and demonstrated adequate quality. Conclusions BREAST-Q, BRECON-31, and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23 have been well-developed and demonstrate adequate measurement properties. Work with key stakeholders is now needed to generate consensus regarding which PROM should be recommended for inclusion in a core measurement set.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0003
Author(s):  
Jamila N. Aberdeen ◽  
Heather F. Stewart ◽  
Rebecca K. Frank Burnett ◽  
Elliot Greenberg

Purpose: Patient reported outcome measures (PROs) allow physical therapists (PTs) the ability to objectively understand a patients’ perception of their symptoms, functional status, and health related quality of life. Although professional organizations have issued recommendations for PRO use, many of these measures were developed and validated within the adult population which may limit their application to pediatric orthopedics. It is currently unknown which measures are being used within this population, and thus the purpose of this study is to evaluate the current use of PROs among pediatric sports PT and determine how PRO information is used in clinical care. Methods: An online survey, developed in REDCap™, was administered via email to members of the Sports Section Youth Athlete Special Interest Group (YASIG) and the Pediatric Research in Sports Medicine Society (PRiSM), over the course of 8 weeks. The survey was developed and pilot tested by 4 physical therapists and 3 orthopedic surgeons and consisted of 24 possible questions, taking 3-5 minutes to complete. Descriptive statistics and frequency tallies were utilized to analyze the data. Results: There was a total of 70 respondents (response rate YASIG 17%; response rate PRiSM 90%) who completed the questionnaire in its entirety. There was a wide range of clinical experience with 31% reporting 0-5 years, 23%, 6-10 years, 16%, 11-15 years, and 30% >16 years. The majority (54%) reported working in a hospital based outpatient setting or private practice (24%). Ninety four percent (n=66) of respondents reported using PROs, with 100% (n=66) of these subjects issuing them at the initial visit, 94% (n=62) at discharge, and 91% (n=60) monthly. The Neck Disability Index (76%, n=50), Oswestry (76%, n=50), and QuickDASH (68%, n=45) were most frequently used for neck, back and shoulder disorders, respectively. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) was the most widely utilized measure for multiple body regions including 74% (n=49) for either hip or knee dysfunction, and 26% (n=16) for ankle. In general, knee disorders demonstrated the highest degree of variability in scale selection with 52% (n=34) using the IKDC, 35% (n=23) using the Pedi-IKDC and 20% (n=13) (using the KOOS). The information obtained from PROs was used to demonstrate effectiveness of treatment (80%, n=53), inform clinical decisions (77%, n=51), satisfy insurance requirements (59%, n=39), used for goal writing (60%, n=40), and research (36%, n=24). Only 6% (n=4) of PTs indicated that PROs did not impact clinical reasoning within their plan of care. When asked how the information from PROs is used within clinical practice, it was noted that 71% (n=47) of PTs would ‘revise physical therapy goals’ if scores were either higher or lower than expected and 38% (n=25) would ‘refer patient back to the physician’ if PRO results showed lack of progress or regression. In addition, 20% (n=13) of PTs noted they utilize the results from PROs to help inform discharge decision making. When asked regarding barriers to using PROs, PTs reported inadequate time (42%, n=28), difficultly remembering to administer (38%, n=25) and uncertainty regarding which PRO to use (21%, n=14) as the main impediments in using PROs. Conclusions: Our results indicate that the majority of pediatric sports PTs are using PROs to establish efficacy of treatment, inform clinical decision making and set goals. Inadequate time and indecision with regards to which scale to use, were identified as barriers to use. Knee disorders demonstrated the largest variability in scale use. Interestingly, the LEFS was reported at high frequencies for the hip, knee and ankle joints despite the availability of other joint specific measures available. The Oswestry and NDI are also used by 76% of respondents despite neither tool being validated in pediatrics. This finding may be due to the absence of any pediatric specific alternative measures. Clinical Relevance: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid implemented value based purchasing program per the mandate of the Affordable Care Act. The Act established a performance based approach to payment with a goal of ensuring better clinical outcomes and improved patient experience. As a result, there is an increased emphasis on using PROs to demonstrate efficacy and functional improvement. It is reassuring that many PTs are using PROs and using the obtained data to drive clinical care. However, the high variability in scale choice makes comparative outcomes research difficult. In addition, the majority of the PROs used are not validated within the pediatric population and thus may not be appropriate tools for assessing these patients perception of care delivered or even represent their functional/athletic limitations. Given the high prevalence of use and importance to clinical practice, the need for psychometric testing and/or scale development specifically for pediatric sports population is imperative.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document