Measurement of functional ability and health status in the arthritic patient

A systematic search and critical review of measures of disability for use in a population survey of hand osteoarthritis (OA)

OBJECTIVE

In order to develop a hand assessment questionnaire for a population survey, a systematic review was undertaken of measures of hand disability. The purpose of this review was to identify valid measures to evaluate hand osteoarthritis (HOA) in the general population and primary care and to perform a quality appraisal of them.

METHOD

Measurement tools were identified from an online search of databases (Medline, CINAHL and Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), 1990-2002) restricted to English language and adult population. Search terms combined "osteoarthritis" and "arthritis" with "hand" and ["function" or "disability" or "outcome"]. Instruments used in the evaluation of HOA were identified following application of strict eligibility criteria. The use of these tools in HOA was rated by pairs of independent reviewers according to criteria developed by the Medical Outcomes Trust.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded a list of articles which were not mutually exclusive (ISI, 127; Medline, 64; CINAHL, 61). Full journal articles were ordered from relevant abstracts (ISI, 28; Medline, 3; CINAHL, 5). Further hand searching of articles produced an additional 34 references. A total of 61 references were identified, 18 measurement tools, 5 of which met the inclusion criteria [Algofunctional Index (FIHOA), Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale 2 (AIMS2), Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN), Cochin]. Overall, the AIMS2 and AUSCAN were more highly rated than the FIHOA, Cochin and HAQ.

CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this review was not to recommend any one instrument over another but to provide an overall summary of the robustness of commonly used measures. The choice of instrument will depend on many factors, and will differ from project to project depending on the question asked.

The use of rheumatoid arthritis health-related quality of life patient questionnaires in clinical practice: lessons learned

OBJECTIVE

The utilization of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) patient questionnaires by clinical rheumatologists is limited. Yet, considerable literature exists defining the value of such data. In an effort to understand this apparent paradox, we performed a literature review and conducted a survey to describe what has been learned over the past 2 decades concerning the use of these measures in clinical care and explore the reasons for their underutilization.

METHODS

A panel of rheumatologists with extensive clinical experience was convened to review the relevant literature pertaining to the use of HRQOL patient instruments in clinical practice. Additionally, a survey of all American College of Rheumatology practicing clinicians was conducted to assess the use of and beliefs about these measures.

RESULTS

The literature provided evidence to support the use of HRQOL patient measures in clinical practice. Forty-seven percent of the responding rheumatologists stated that none of their patients complete HRQOL patient questionnaires. The majority of respondents (63%) reported that such information is "somewhat valuable." The most frequently reported reason for the underutilization was that such instruments "require too much staff time."

CONCLUSIONS

The literature supports the potential value of HRQOL patient questionnaires in clinical practice. Few rheumatologists routinely gather such information as part of patient care. Reasons for this discrepancy between utility and use are given along with recommendations intended to help increase their utilization in clinical care.

Stimulating active coping in patients with rheumatic diseases: a systematic review of controlled group intervention studies

Teaching patients with rheumatic diseases to cope actively with their problems may increase the social support they receive and, also, the quality of their lives. In this paper, a systematic review of coping interventions for people with rheumatic diseases is described. Fourteen controlled trials were selected. Effects on quality of life have been measured in 13 studies of which 6 found positive effects. Effects on social support have been found in one of four studies investigating this variable. Coping has been measured in three studies with effects found on active coping in one study. There is a need for well-designed research on the effects of active coping in people with rheumatic diseases, as this may open new perspectives in patient education.

Validity of health status measurement with the Dutch Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale 2 in individuals with severe haemophilia

The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of the Dutch Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2 (D-AIMS2). Hence, D-AIMS2 data of individuals with severe haemophilia were correlated with clinical and perceived health-related quality of life data. Patients with severe haemophilia, who visit the Van Creveldkliniek on a regular basis, were administered the D-AIMS2. In addition, health-related quality of life was measured by the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP). As clinical indices, range of movement (which was converted into Joint Alignment and Motion scores) and muscle strength were recorded during the routine visit. Extensive descriptive and correlational (linear) analyses between corresponding datasets were performed. Thirty-one individuals with severe haemophilia were included. Their scores on the D-AIMS2 demonstrated moderate to very high internal consistency for scales and components (Cronbach's alpha = 0.62-0.92). The physical health components of the D-AIMS2 and the SIP were significantly correlated (Pearson's r = 0.53; P < 0.05). The psychological health and social interaction components of the D-AIMS2 did not correlate significantly with the psychosocial component of the SIP. The physical health component of the D-AIMS2 correlated significantly with the clinical data for the lower extremities (r = 0.52 and r = -0.45; P < 0.05). These data support the reliability and validity of the physical aspects of the D-AIMS2 in patients with severe haemophilia. The next step should be to extend the investigation of psychometric qualities of this health-related questionnaire in a larger population.

The SF-36 Arthritis-Specific Health Index (ASHI): II. Tests of validity in four clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

The SF-36 Arthritis-Specific Health Index (ASHI) was constructed to improve the responsiveness of the SF-36 Health Survey to changes in the severity of arthritis through the use of arthritis-specific scoring algorithms. This study compared the responsiveness of the ASHI and other generic scales and summary measures scored from the SF-36 in clinical trials of health outcomes for patients with arthritis.

METHODS

Longitudinal data for patients (n = 835) participating in four placebo-controlled trials were analyzed. Study participants had at least a 6-month history of moderate to severe osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis of the knee or hip. All had undergone a washout period of 3 to 14 days before baseline assessment to bring about a flare state in osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis symptoms. Their average age was 60 years, and 72% were female. Responders and nonresponders were classified on the basis of physician assessments of changes in arthritis severity, with blinding as to treatment group; treated and untreated (placebo) groups were also compared. For the SF-36 ASHI, generic physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary measures and each of eight subscales scored from the SF-36 (acute version) change scores were computed by subtracting scores before treatment from scores at 2-week follow-up. To evaluate empirical validity, analyses of variance were performed. For each measure, an F-ratio was computed for the comparison between clinically defined groups of responders and nonresponders and between groups of patients assigned to placebo versus drug therapy. Relative validity (RV) coefficients were computed for the ASHI in comparison with PCS, MCS, and the best SF-36 scale to determine which was more responsive.

RESULTS

In analyses of each of the four trials and all trials combined, RV coefficients for the ASHI were higher than those for both of the generic SF-36 summary measures and for the most valid SF-36 scale (Bodily Pain), with only one exception. Across 40 tests of validity in distinguishing treated from untreated patients, the ASHI was 5% to 19% more valid than the best SF-36 scale (RV = 1.05-1.19; RV = 1.10 in all trials combined). The generic summary measures (PCS and MCS) were much less valid in these tests (RV = 0.67 and 0.27, respectively). In analyses of responders and nonresponders, RV coefficients for the ASHI ranged from 0.70 to 1.22 (RV = 1.04 in all trials combined), in comparison with the best SF-36 subscale, which was always Bodily Pain. RV coefficients were lower for PCS (RV = 0.75) and much lower than the MCS (RV = 0.18) in comparisons of treatment outcomes based on all trials combined.

CONCLUSION

The ASHI appears to be more valid than the eight SF-36 scales and PCS and MCS summary measures for purposes of distinguishing between treated and untreated patients and between clinical responders and nonresponders. This study demonstrates the feasibility of improving the validity of the SF-36 through the use of arthritis-specific scoring while retaining the option of generic scoring, which makes it possible to also compare results across diseases and treatments.

The SF-36 Health Survey as a generic outcome measure in clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: relative validity of scales in relation to clinical measures of arthritis severity

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the validity of SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36) scale scores and summary measure scores to describe the health burden of arthritis and to be responsive to clinical indicators of arthritis severity used in four clinical trials.

METHODS

Adults participating in four double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trials of therapy for osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis were administered the SF-36 concurrent with clinical measures of disease severity (n = 1,016). Data were collected before treatment and 2 weeks after treatment. Mean SF-36 scores for all patients with arthritis at baseline were compared to a sociodemographically equivalent national norm to test the ability of the SF-36 to describe the burden of arthritis. To test the responsiveness of SF-36 scores to clinical measures of arthritis severity, mean SF-36 scale scores were compared across patients differing in arthritis severity before treatment. Two-week mean SF-36 change scores were compared across patients who improved in arthritis severity (responders) versus patients who did not improve (nonresponders). F-statistics and relative validity coefficients were computed to determine how well each SF-36 scale and summary measure discriminated among arthritis severity levels and distinguished treatment responders from nonresponders, relative to the best scale.

RESULTS

Large and statistically significant differences in mean SF-36 scale scores and summary measures were found such that trial participants scored in worse health than a sociodemographically equivalent US general population norm. In addition, the largest SF-36 scale scores were found to significantly differ across clinically defined levels of arthritis severity. Finally, it was found that the SF-36 scales that best discriminate among arthritis severity groups cross-sectionally were also best at discriminating treatment responders from nonresponders.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study support the validity of the SF-36 to document the health burden of arthritis and as a measure of generic health outcome for clinical trials of alternative treatments for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis patients.

The SF-36 Arthritis-Specific Health Index (ASHI): I. Development and cross-validation of scoring algorithms

An arthritis-specific health index (ASHI) for the SF-36 Health Survey was developed by studying its responsiveness to changes in clinical indicators of arthritis severity. Longitudinal data from 1,076 patients participating in four placebo-controlled trials were analyzed. All had at least a 6-month history of moderate to severe osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis of the knee or hip. All had undergone a washout period of 3 to 14 days before baseline assessment to bring about a flare state in osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis symptoms. Their average age was 60 years and 72% were female. Change scores for the eight-scale SF-36 health profile (acute version) and five arthritis-specific measures of disease severity (knee pain on weight bearing, time to walk 50 feet, physician global evaluation of symptom severity and impact, patient global evaluation of symptom severity and impact, and pain intensity visual analogue scale) were computed by subtracting scores before treatment from scores at two-week follow-up. Canonical correlation methods were used to derive weights for changes in SF-36 scales to score a single index (ASHI) that maximized its correlation with changes in the set of five clinical measures of arthritis severity. The weights used to score the ASHI were cross-validated in a 25% holdout group (N = 144) from the first two osteoarthritis trials and in two additional osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis trials (N = 530). Only one SF-36 canonical variate (ASHI) correlated significantly (F = 4.69, P < 0.0001) with the clinical canonical variate that served as the "criterion" measure of change in the severity of arthritis. Changes in the ASHI and clinical canonical variate were substantially correlated in the developmental sample (r = 0.628, P < 0.0001) and on cross-validation (r = 0.629, P < 0.0001). The clinical canonical variate correlated highly (r = 0.75-0.88) with changes in all but one of the five clinical measures (50-foot walk; r = 0.41). The pattern of correlations between changes in SF-36 scales and the ASHI indicated that ASHI is primarily a measure of bodily pain (r = 0.92) and other aspects of physical and role functioning and well-being (r = 0.69 for Role-Physical, r = 0.68 for Physical Functioning, r = 0.52 for Social Functioning, and r = 0.51 Vitality). The patterns of correlations between SF-36 scales and the ASHI were very similar across developmental and cross-validation samples. This research demonstrates the feasibility and generalizability of a single ASHI scored from changes in responses to the SF-36 Health Survey. The generic SF-36 health profile, which has already been shown to be useful in comparing arthritis with other diseases and treatments, can also be scored specifically to make it more useful in studies of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Psychosocial assessment of pain in patients having rheumatic diseases

A variety of reliable and valid psychosocial assessment instruments have been developed. Many of these instruments are brief and easily incorporated into clinical practice settings. Measures of coping, self-efficacy, helplessness, and cognitive distortion are especially useful in understanding the pain experience in rheumatic disease populations. Information gleaned from psychosocial assessments is increasingly being used to guide pain treatment efforts. Recent research, suggests that treatment outcomes can be improved if one tailors psychosocial pain management protocols to address the particular problems identified by comprehensive psychosocial assessments. Considered overall, psychosocial assessment methods have much to offer the clinician working with patients having persistent pain. The current status of this field is promising, and as psychosocial assessment methods become even more fully integrated into clinical practice, they are likely to yield even greater insights into the pain experience of patients with rheumatic diseases.

The efficacy of therapeutic touch for improving functional ability in elders with degenerative arthritis

The purpose of this Rogerian study was to determine whether therapeutic touch improved functional ability in elders with arthritis as compared to routine treatment and progressive muscle relaxation. Eighty-two non-institutionalized elders were randomly assigned to therapeutic touch or progressive muscle relaxation treatments. Subjects served as their own control for 4 weeks, then received six treatments at 1-week intervals. Pain, tension, mood, and satisfaction improved after therapeutic touch and progressive muscle relaxation. Hand function improved after therapeutic touch; walking and bending improved after progressive muscle relaxation. Functional ability was significantly different between the two groups for mobility and hand function. Lower scores (indicating better function) were attained by the therapeutic touch group.

Development of a musculoskeletal extremity health status instrument: the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment instrument

Despite an increasing reliance on the use of health status measures to assess and evaluate medical care, no single instrument is currently available for use with the broad range of patients with musculoskeletal disorders of the extremities that is commonly seen in clinical practice. In this paper, we report on the development of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment instrument, a 100-item self reported health status instrument that is designed to meet this need. The instrument was developed in two phases. During the first phase, items were selected on the basis of interviews with 135 patients and 12 clinicians and from reviews of existing health status instruments. The items then were grouped into categories. During the second phase, the instrument was tested for reliability and content validity using a sample of 327 patients with one of five musculoskeletal disorders of the upper and lower extremities (fractures, soft-tissue injuries, repetitive motion disorders, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis). The patients were selected from both community and academic sites. Content validity also was demonstrated, based on a review of item selection procedures, expert opinion, and the distribution of scores on the instrument.