Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Best Is the Enemy of Good (But What if Good Is Not Good Enough?)

Which Scale to Assess Pain Self-efficacy Shows Better Measurement Properties in Chronic Low Back Pain? A Head-To-Head Comparison Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the quality of the measurement properties of Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ)-10, PSEQ-4, PSEQ-2, Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale (CPSS) long-form, and CPSS short-form (CPSS-SF) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (measurement properties).

SETTING

Outpatient rehabilitation.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants (N=245) with nonspecific CLBP (18-60y, 63% women) were enrolled in this study.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain self-efficacy questionnaires were administered on 3 occasions: baseline assessment, 1 week after the first assessment (reliability), and after an 8-week exercise program (responsiveness). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach α were used to assess reliability and internal consistency, respectively. Pearson correlation and confirmatory factor analyses were used to assess construct validity. The area under the curve and hypothesis testing were used to assess responsiveness.

RESULTS

No difference was observed for all the questionnaires regarding internal consistency (Cronbach α>.7), criterion validity (r>.88), and reliability (ICC>.7). The scales confirmed >75% of the hypotheses for the construct validity, except for CPSS-SF. PSEQ-2 did not meet the criterion for structural validity. PSEQ-10 met all the criteria for good measurement properties according to Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

It was not possible to calculate structural validity for PSEQ-2, CPSS-SF did not meet the criterion for suitable hypothesis testing for construct validity, and all the questionnaires did not show suitable measurement error, except for the PSEQ-10. Hence, the PSEQ-10 was the unique scale that met all the criteria for good measurement properties for assessing pain self-efficacy in CLBP.

Patient-reported outcome measures in physical therapy practice for neck pain: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

Understanding which patient-reported outcome measures are being collected and utilized in clinical practice and research for patients with neck pain will help to inform recommendations for a core set of measures that provide value to patients and clinicians during diagnosis, clinical decision-making, goal setting and evaluation of responsiveness to treatment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a review of systematic reviews using a qualitative synthesis on the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients presenting with neck pain to physical therapy.

METHODS

An electronic search of systematic reviews and guideline publications was performed using MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), and Web of Science (Clarivate) databases to identify reviews that evaluated physical therapy interventions or interventions commonly performed by a physical therapist for individuals with neck pain and included at least one patient-reported outcome measure. The frequency and variability in which the outcome measures were reported among the studies in the review and the constructs for which they measured were evaluated. The evaluation of a core set of outcome measures was assessed. Risk of bias and quality assessment was performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2.

RESULTS

Of the initial 7,003 articles, a total of 37 studies were included in the final review. Thirty-one PROMs were represented within the 37 reviews with eleven patient-reported outcome measures in three or more reviews. The eleven PROMs assessed the constructs of disability, pain intensity, psychosocial factors and quality of life. The greatest variability was found amongst individual measures assessing psychosocial factors. Assessment of psychosocial factors was the least represented construct in the included studies. Overall, the most frequently utilized patient reported outcome measures were the Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale. The most frequently used measures evaluating the constructs of disability, pain intensity, quality of life and psychosocial functioning included the Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, Short-Form-36 health survey and Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire respectively. Overall risk of bias and quality assessment confidence levels ranged from critically low (2 studies), low (12 studies), moderate (8 studies), and high (15 studies).

CONCLUSION

This study identified a core set of patient-reported outcome measures that represented the constructs of disability, pain intensity and quality of life. This review recommends the collection and use of the Neck Disability Index and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analog Scale. Recommendation for a QoL measure needs to be considered in the context of available resources and administrative burden. Further research is needed to confidently recommend a QoL and psychosocial measure for patients presenting with neck pain. Other measures that were not included in this review but should be further evaluated for patients with neck pain are the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical function, PROMIS Pain Interference and the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) tool.

A Systematic Review Evaluating Psychometric Properties of Parent or Caregiver Report Instruments on Child Maltreatment: Part 1: Content Validity

AIMS

Child maltreatment (CM) is a serious public health issue, affecting over half of all children globally. Although most CM is perpetrated by parents or caregivers and their reports of CM is more accurate than professionals or children, parent or caregiver report instruments measuring CM have never been systematically evaluated for their content validity, the most important psychometric property. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the content validity of all current parent or caregiver report CM instruments.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Sociological Abstracts; gray literature was retrieved through reference checking. Eligible studies needed to report on content validity of instruments measuring CM perpetrated and reported by parents or caregivers. The quality of studies and content validity of the instruments were evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments guidelines.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies reported on the content validity of 15 identified instruments. The study quality was generally poor. The content validity of the instruments was overall sufficient, but most instruments did not provide high-quality evidence for content validity.

CONCLUSIONS

Most instruments included in this review showed promising content validity. The International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Child Abuse Screening Tool for use in Trial appears to be the most promising, followed by the Family Maltreatment-Child Abuse criteria. However, firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to the low quality of evidence for content validity. Further studies are required to evaluate the remaining psychometric properties for recommending parent or caregiver report CM instruments.

Linking AM-PAC Cognition to PROMIS Cognitive Function

OBJECTIVE

To link the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) Applied Cognition to the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Cognitive Function, allowing for a common metric across scales.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey study.

SETTING

Outpatient rehabilitation clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive sample of 500 participants (N=500) aged ≥18 years presenting for outpatient therapy (physical, occupation, speech).

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

AM-PAC Medicare and Generic Cognition short forms and PROMIS Cognitive Function items representing the PROMIS Cognitive Function item bank.

RESULTS

The calibration of 25 AM-PAC cognition items with 11 fixed PROMIS cognitive function item parameters using item-response theory indicated that items were measuring the same underlying construct (cognition). Both scales measured a wide range of functioning. The AM-PAC Generic Cognitive assessment showed more reliability with lower levels of cognition, whereas the PROMIS Cognitive Function full-item bank was more reliable across a larger distribution of scores. Data were appropriate for a fixed-anchor item response theory-based crosswalk and AM-PAC Cognition raw scores were mapped onto the PROMIS metric.

CONCLUSIONS

The crosswalk developed in this study allows for converting scores from the AM-PAC Applied Cognition to the PROMIS Cognitive Function scale.

Linking AM-PAC Mobility and Daily Activity to the PROMIS Physical Function Metric

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to link Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) Mobility and Daily Activity scales to the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) allowing for a common metric across scales.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of patients 18 years and older presenting to 1 of 8 outpatient rehabilitation clinics in southwestern Pennsylvania. Patients completed one survey with questions from the AM-PAC Daily Activity and Mobility short forms, and the PROMIS PF item bank. Using item response theory, 2 rounds of fixed-parameter calibration were performed. In the first, the AM-PAC Daily Activity and Mobility items were calibrated with 27 fixed item parameters from the PROMIS PF. Second, the AM-PAC Daily Activity items were calibrated with 11 PROMIS Upper Extremity fixed item parameters. This process uses the construct of physical function and equates AM-PAC items on the same underlying measurement scale for the PROMIS PF.

RESULTS

Both scales measured a wide range of functioning and demonstrated good calibration. Data were appropriate for a fixed-parameter item response theory-based crosswalk. AM-PAC Daily Activity and Mobility raw scores were mapped onto the PROMIS PF metric. AM-PAC Daily Activity scores were also mapped onto the PROMIS PF Upper Extremity metric.

CONCLUSION

Question items from the AM-PAC Daily Activity, AM-PAC Mobility, and PROMIS PF similarly measure the construct of physical function. This consistency allows for a crosswalk of AM-PAC scores onto the PROMIS PF metric.

IMPACT

Crosswalk tables developed in this study allow for converting scores from the AM-PAC Daily Activity and Mobility scales to the PROMIS PF metric. This will facilitate monitoring of longitudinal change in function over time and across settings.

Challenges and solutions in prognostic prediction models in spinal disorders

Methodological shortcomings in prognostic modeling for patients with spinal disorders are highly common. This general commentary discusses methodological challenges related to the specific nature of this field. Five specific methodological challenges in prognostic modeling for patients with spinal disorders are presented with their potential solutions, as related to the choice of study participants, purpose of studies, limitations in measurements of outcomes and predictors, complexity of recovery predictions, and confusion of prognosis and treatment response. Large studies specifically designed for prognostic model research are needed, using standard baseline measurement sets, clearly describing participants' recruitment and accounting and correcting for measurement limitations.

Concurrent validity of the single assessment numerical evaluation and patient-reported functional measures in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: An observational study

INTRODUCTION

As patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) continue to evolve as vital measures of patient status, it may be useful to identify efficiently, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores that are valid and related to the patient's specific functional needs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the concurrent validity between SANE scores and commonly used body region-specific functional PROMs, functional percentage change scores, and total visits in patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders.

METHODS

479 patients completed the SANE and one of the following PROMs at physical therapy discharge: Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire [MDQ], Neck Disability Index [NDI], Penn Shoulder Score [PSS], International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Lower Extremity Functional Scale [LEFS]. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between SANE and the aforementioned outcomes and total visits.

RESULTS

The SANE was moderately negatively correlated with the MDQ and NDI at discharge. There were high positive correlations between SANE and PSS and IKDC and moderate positive correlation between SANE and LEFS. The SANE and MDQ and IKDQ demonstrated low positive correlation for functional percentage change scores, and the SANE and NDI demonstrated moderate positive correlation for functional percentage change scores. For total visits outcome, there was a negligible negative correlation between SANE and MDQ and NDI at discharge.

CONCLUSION

The SANE exhibits acceptable concurrent validity across all investigated PROMs at physical therapy discharge. However, inconsistent relationships across body regions for functional percentage change and total visits suggest differences in these values as compared to raw discharge scores.