Associations Between Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Asthma Control and Psychosocial Symptoms

2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-312
Author(s):  
ChangWon C. Lee ◽  
Faye F. Holder-Niles ◽  
Linda Haynes ◽  
Jenny Chan Yuen ◽  
Corinna J. Rea ◽  
...  

There is growing emphasis on using patient-reported outcome measures to enhance clinical practice. This study was a retrospective review of scores on the Childhood Asthma Control Test (C-ACT) and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist-17 (PSC-17) at a pediatric primary care center in Boston, Massachusetts. A total of 218 patients were selected at random using billing codes for well-child (WC) care and asthma, excluding complex medical conditions. Cutoff scores were used to identify uncontrolled asthma (C-ACT ⩽19) and clinically significant psychosocial symptoms (+PSC-17). Multiple logistic regression was used to measure associations between C-ACT ⩽19 and +PSC-17, adjusting for covariates. In multivariable analysis, C-ACT ⩽19 at WC visits was associated with +PSC-17 at WC visits (adjusted odds ratio = 3.2 [95% confidence interval = 1.3-8.6]). C-ACT ⩽19 at non-WC visits was also associated with +PSC-17 at WC visits (adjusted odds ratio = 3.1 [95% confidence interval = 1.2-8.9]). Patient-reported outcome measures of asthma control and psychosocial symptoms were positively correlated in this sample.

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1919-1920
Author(s):  
L. Uhrenholt ◽  
R. Christensen ◽  
L. Dreyer ◽  
A. Mortensen ◽  
E. M. Hauge ◽  
...  

Background:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential to understand the patient’s perception of arthritis activity. In Demark, PROMs are registered on a touchscreen in the outpatient clinic. However, some patients find it inconvenient due to e.g. waiting in queue, lack of privacy, uncomfortable seating position, reduced upper limb strength and dexterity with seeing the touchscreen due to deformity of the cervical spine. The widespread use of smartphones makes it possible for patients to register PROMs via an application (app) on their own device.Objectives:The primary aim is to evaluate the agreement (i.e. similarity) between the two devices assessed by the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) status among patients with inflammatory arthritis.Methods:The study was a randomised, crossover, agreement trial (NCT03486613) conducted at Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark. Participants were recruited through an invitation on the touchscreen in the outpatient clinic. Patients with an established diagnosis (≥ 12 months) of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and experience with the PROM questionnaires (≥ 3 previous registrations) were enrolled and randomised in ratio 1:1 (stratified by diagnosis) to PROM registration through the DANBIO app and the touchscreen in random order. Figure 1A and 1B shows the two devices.The sample size calculation was based on a prespecified equivalence margin of ±0.11 HAQ-DI points (i.e. ≤ half of the minimal important difference of 0.22 points) yielding a power of 99.2% for 60 enrolled patients. There was a wash-out period of 1-2 days between the two device registrations to minimise the potential carryover effect.A paired t-test was used to calculate the mean HAQ-DI score for the two devices and the difference in HAQ-DI score with a 95% confidence interval (CI). A Bland-Altman plot was used to assess limits of agreement (LoA).Results:60 patients (20 with RA, 20 with PsA and 20 with axSpA) were randomised of whom 51.7% were male. Mean age was 53.7 years (range 22-77) and mean disease duration was 12.5 years (range 1.0-34.8).Mean HAQ-DI was 0.608 (95%CI 0.437;0.779) for the DANBIO app and 0.614 (95%CI 0.446;0.783) for the touchscreen (Table 1). Agreement between scores obtained with the two devices is illustrated with Bland-Altman plots in figure 2A and 2B. The paired mean difference of HAQ-DI between the two devices was -0.006 (95%CI -0.0424; 0.030); thus the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference was within the prespecified equivalence margin of ±0.11 HAQ-DI points.Table 1.HAQ-DI scores, difference and LoA for the two devices.App, mean (SD)Touchscreen, mean (SD)Difference, mean (95%CI)LoAMissing valuesHAQ-DI (0-3)0.608 (0.656)0.614 (0.646)-0.006 (-0.042;0.030)-0.277;0.2641Conclusion:The current study showed no statistical or clinically important difference in HAQ-DI measurement captured by a smartphone app or outpatient touchscreen. Therefore, we feel confident that the two devices perform similarly enough to be used interchangeably in patients with inflammatory arthritis.Disclosure of Interests:Line Uhrenholt Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Novartis (not related to the submitted work), Robin Christensen: None declared, Lene Dreyer: None declared, Annette Mortensen Speakers bureau: MSD and Eli Lilly (not related to the submitted work)., Ellen-Margrethe Hauge Speakers bureau: Fees for speaking/consulting: MSD, AbbVie, UCB and Sobi; research funding to Aarhus University Hospital: Roche and Novartis (not related to the submitted work)., Niels Steen Krogh: None declared, Mikkel Kramme Abildtoft: None declared, Peter C. Taylor Grant/research support from: Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, and Gilead, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly and Company, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer Roche, and UCB, Salome Kristensen: None declared


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yalini Guruparan ◽  
Thiyahiny Sunil Navaratinaraja ◽  
Gowry Selvaratnam ◽  
Nalika Gunawardena ◽  
Shalini Sri Ranganat

Abstract Background: Several asthma patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed in developed countries. Since social and cultural differences may indirectly influence the PROM therefore, this study has been carried out in Northern Sri Lanka to develop an Asthma Control PROM (AC-PROM) Tamil in the local context. Methods: The AC-PROM Tamil was developed in 3 steps: item generation, item reduction and psychometric evaluation as guided by the USA Food and Drug Administration. Items were generated through thematic analysis from six focus group discussions among patients with asthma. Items were generated in Tamil and English Languages. A clinician and a clinical pharmacologist refined the items to suit the cultural context. Items were converted to an interviewer administered questionnaire in Tamil in the format of 5–point Likert scale. Item reduction was done by two rounds of online Delphi surveys among 10 experts and an exploratory factor analysis among 200 patients with asthma. Thus developed AC-PROM Tamil was assessed by experts for face and content validity. Criterion validity was evaluated against the forced expiratory volume in one second of 187 patients with asthma. Cut-off value for PROM to assess the asthma control was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve. Reliability was verified by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Results: From thematic analysis of FGD 10 items were generated and these items were refined and subjected to item reduction. During Delphi survey out of 10 items, one was removed. In exploratory factor analysis another one item was removed and remaining 8 items were categorised under 2 factors. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for AC-PROM Tamil was 0.904, which indicated good reliability. Clarity and relevance of the content of the items were confirmed by the experts. Criterion validity was demonstrated significant correlation between AC-PROM Tamil and forced expiratory volume in one second (r = 0.66, p = 0.001). Cut-off value of AC-PROM Tamil to detect asthma control was 28.5 with sensitivity (79%) and specificity (71%). The AC-PROM Tamil has moderate accuracy (AUC =0.796; 95% CI: 0.73-0.86). Response rate of the AC-PROM Tamil was 100% with no missing data and time taken to complete the PROM was 3-4 minutes. Conclusion: The AC-PROM Tamil is a simple, reasonably accurate, reliable, objective and valid tool to assess effectiveness of asthma control in Tamil speaking patients during clinical practice and researches.


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

Hand ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 155894472097412
Author(s):  
Ali Aneizi ◽  
Dominique Gelmann ◽  
Dominic J. Ventimiglia ◽  
Patrick M. J. Sajak ◽  
Vidushan Nadarajah ◽  
...  

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