Psychometric Properties of Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments in Patients Undergoing Palmar Fasciectomy for Dupuytren's Disease: A Prospective Study
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2014
Psychometric Properties of Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments in Patients Undergoing Palmar Fasciectomy for Dupuytren's Disease: A Prospective Study
The traditional outcome measured following treatment of Dupuytren's Disease (DD) has been digital range of motion; specifically the gain in digital extension. The outcomes research movement in the last three decades however has been advocating the measurement of outcomes from the patient's perspective using Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaires (HRQOL). Although several generic and region-specific HRQOL questionnaires exist, there is no guidance as to which one is the most appropriate for this population. The objective of this study is to evaluate the psychometric properties of three self-reported HRQOL outcome measures in patients with DD.
Methods
Patients with DD were enrolled from the practices of three plastic surgeons. Test-retest reliability, concurrent validity and responsiveness of three HRQOL questionnaires were compared in a prospective study design. The HRQOL measures included Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), Short Form-36 (SF-36), and the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ).
Results
All three measures demonstrated good test-retest reliability (ICC=0.77–0.85). Concurrent validity was found between the HUI3 pain and dexterity attributes and SF-36 physical summary score. The sensitivity of the MHQ to detect changes in the status of the patient was found to be high (effect size=1.14) whereas that of the SF-36 was trivial.
Conclusions
The HUI3 and the MHQ seem to be reliable and valid tools to assess the HRQOL in patients with Dupuytren's Disease.
AldermanAKChungKC. Measuring outcomes in hand surgery. Clin Plast Surg.2008;35(2):239–50.
2.
BadalamenteMAHurstLC. Efficacy and safety of injectable mixed collagenase subtypes in the treatment of Dupuytren's contracture. J Hand Surg.2007;32(6):767–74. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2007.04.002.
3.
BallCPrattALNanchahalJ. Optimal functional outcome measures for assessing treatment for Dupuytren's disease: a systematic review and recommendations for future practice. BMC Musculoskelet Disord.2013;14(1):131.
4.
BeaudreuilJAllardAZerkakDGerberRACappelleriJCQuinteroN. Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main (URAM) scale: development and validation of a tool to assess Dupuytren's disease-specific disability. Arthritis Care Res.2011;63(10):1448–55.
5.
CellaDFTulskyDS. Measuring quality of life today: methodological aspects. Oncology.1990;5:29–38.
6.
ChenNSrinivasanRShauverMChungK. A systematic review of outcomes of fasciotomy, aponeurotomy, and collagenase treatments for Dupuytren's contracture. Hand. 2011;6(3):250–5. doi:10.1007/s11552-011-9326-8.
7.
ChungKCBurnsPBDavis SearsE. Outcomes research in hand surgery: where have we been and where should we go?J Hand Surg.2006;31(8):1373–9.
8.
ChungKCHamillJBWaltersMRHaywardRA. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ): assessment of responsiveness to clinical change. Ann Plast Surg.1999;42(6):619–22.
9.
ChungKCPillsburyMSWaltersMRHaywardRA. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire. J Hand Surg.1998;23(4):575–87. doi:10.1016/S0363-5023(98)80042-7.
10.
CohenJ. Statistical power analysis for the social sciences. 1988.
11.
DavisTBeckerGWRodriguesJNBallCGieleHHobbyJ. Surgery for Dupuytren's contractures of the fingers. The Cochrane Library. 2012.
12.
DesaiSSHentzVR. The treatment of Dupuytren disease. J Hand Surg.2011;36(5):936–42. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.03.002.
13.
DiBenedettiDNguyenDZografosLZiemieckiRZhouX. Prevalence, incidence, and treatments of Dupuytren's disease in the United States: results from a population-based study. Hand. 2011;6(2):149–58. doi:10.1007/s11552-010-9306-4.
14.
DowrickASGabbeBJWilliamsonODCameronPA. Outcome instruments for the assessment of the upper extremity following trauma: a review. Injury. 2005;36(4):468–76. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2004.06.014.
15.
FeenyDFurlongWBoyleMTorranceG. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7(6):490–502.
16.
FurlongWJFeenyDHTorranceGWBarrRD. The health utilities index (HUI®) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med.2001;33(5):375–84. doi:10.3109/07853890109002092.
17.
GrootendorstPFeenyDFurlongW. Health Utilities Index Mark 3: evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey. Med Care. 2000;38(3):290–9.
18.
GuyattGHFeenyDHPatrickDL. Measuring health-related quality of life: basic sciences review. Ann Intern Med.1993;70:225–30.
19.
GuyattGHNaylorCDJuniperEHeylandDKJaeschkeRCookDJ. Users' guides to the medical literature XII. How to use articles about health-related quality of life. JAMA. 1997;277:1232–7.
20.
HaysRAndersonRRevickiD. Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res.1993;2(6):441–9. doi:10.1007/BF00422218.
21.
HerrmanHMetelkoZSzaboSRajkumarSKumarSVanheckG. Study protocol for the World-Health-Organization project to develop a quality-of-life assessment instrument (WHOQoL). Qual Life Res.1993;2:153–9.
22.
HorsmanJFurlongWFeenyDTorranceG. The health utilities index (HUI): Concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:54. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-54.
23.
HurstLCBadalamenteMAHentzVRHotchkissRNKaplanFTDMealsRA. Injectable collagenase clostridium histolyticum for Dupuytren's contracture. N Engl J Med.2009;361(10):968–79.
24.
HustedJACookRJFarewellVTGladmanDD. Methods for assessing responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol.2000;53(5):459–68.
25.
JonesCAFeenyDH. Agreement between patient and proxy responses of health-related quality of life after hip fracture. J Am Geriatr Soc.2005;53(7):1227–33.
26.
KootH. Quality of life in child and adolescent illness: concepts, methods and findings. 2002.
27.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
28.
LoSPickfordM. Current concepts in Dupuytren's disease. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med.2013;6(1):26–34.
29.
Massy-WestroppNKrishnanJAhernM. Comparing the AUSCAN Osteoarthritis Hand Index, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, and Sequential Occupational Dexterity Assessment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol.2004;31(10):1996–2001.
30.
MichouLLermusiauxJLTeyssedouJPBardinTBeaudreuilJPetit-TeixeiraE. Genetics of Dupuytren's disease. Joint Bone Spine. 2012;79(1):7–12.
31.
PicardoNEKhanWS. Advances in the understanding of the aetiology of Dupuytren's disease. Surgeon. 2012;10(3):151–8.
32.
SchoneveldKMsCPT. Clinimetric evaluation of measurement tools used in hand therapy to assess activity and participation. Practice. 2009;1:2.
33.
SteinerDLNormanGR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. USA: Oxford University Press; 2008.
34.
ThomaACornacchiSLovricsPGoldsmithC. User's guide to the surgical literature: how to assess an article on health-related quality of life. Can J Surg.2008;51(3):215–24.
35.
ThomaAFarrokhyarFMcKnightLBhandariM. Practical tips for surgical research: how to optimize patient recruitment. Can J Surg.2010;53(3):205–10.
36.
ThomaAMcKnightLL. Quality-adjusted life-year as a surgical outcome measure: a primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg.2010;125(4):1279.
37.
ThomaAMcKnightLKnightC. The use of economic evaluation in hand surgery. Hand Clin.2009;25(1):113–23.
38.
TownleyWABakerRSheppardNGrobbelaarAO. Dupuytren's contracture unfolded. BMJ Clin Res Ed.2006;332(7538):397–400. doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7538.397.
39.
WareJEJ. SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000;25(24):3130–9.
40.
WareJEJrKosinskiMBaylissMSMcHorneyCARogersWHRaczekA. Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the medical outcomes study. Med Care. 1995;33(4):AS264–79. doi:10.2307/3766635.
41.
WareJEJrSherbourneCD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.
