Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

The authors describe a method of collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using computerized adaptive tests (CATs) in a high-volume orthopedic surgery practice with limited resources and no research coordinator.

Methods:

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System CATs were collected prospectively for all clinic patients using a tablet and recorded in the electronic medical record. Scores were compared with validated national norms using single-variable t tests. Linear regression was used to assess age effects. Preoperative and postoperative pain scales were compared using paired t tests.

Results:

In total, 4,524 CATs were administered during 10,719 visits (42%), reaching 70% as more tablets were introduced. Completing the CATs required 157 seconds. Older patients took more time than younger ones (P < .05). Compared with normalized t scores of 50 ± 10 for the US population, pain intensity was 48.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.8-48.2), pain interference 58.9 (95% CI, 58.6-59.1), physical function 40.1 (95% CI, 39.9-40.3), global physical health 43.4 (95% CI, 41.9-44.9), and global mental health 41.1 (95% CI, 40.89-41.4) (P < .05 for all). Age had a small effect on all domains (P < .05). Approximately 20 patients would be required to demonstrate a 15% change for a 2-tailed, paired study with α = 0.05 and 80% power. After surgery, pain intensity improved from 51.9 ± 8.2 to 44.1 ± 8.5, pain interference improved from 62.5 ± 6.9 to 55.7 ± 8.4, and physical function improved from 37.3 ± 8.9 to 41.5 ± 7.9 (P < .05 for all).

Conclusions:

Using tablets to administer CATs and entering the data in the electronic medical record for later retrieval was an effective technique to collect PROs. An adequate number of tablets are needed for acceptable completion rates. Modest sample size requirements for comparative studies highlight the potential of these tools and techniques.

Level of Evidence:

Level II, Prospective Comparative Study

Keywords

patient-reported outcomes computer adaptive tests PROMIS

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beckmann

Hung

Bounsanga

et al . Psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS physical function computerized adaptive test in comparison to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(12):1961-1967.

Broderick

DeWitt

Rothrock

Crane

Forrest

CB.

Advances in patient-reported outcomes: the NIH PROMIS^® measures. EGEMS (Wash DC). 2013;1(1):1015.

Broderick

Schneider

Junghaenel

Schwartz

Stone

AA.

Validity and reliability of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013;65(10):1625-1633.

Cook

Schalet

Kallen

Rutsohn

Cella

Establishing a common metric for self-reported pain: linking BPI pain interference and SF-36 bodily pain subscale scores to the PROMIS pain interference metric. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(10):2305-2318.

Doring

Nota

Hageman

Ring

DC.

Measurement of upper extremity disability using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. J Hand Surg. 2014;39(6):1160-1165.

Driban

Morgan

Price

Cook

Wang

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments among individuals with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study of floor/ceiling effects and construct validity. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:253.

Fries

Krishnan

Rose

Lingala

Bruce

Improved responsiveness and reduced sample size requirements of PROMIS physical function scales with item response theory. Arthritis Res Ther. 2011;13(5):R147.

Fries

Witter

Rose

et al . Item response theory, computerized adaptive testing, and PROMIS: assessment of physical function. J Rheumatol. 2014;41(1):153-158.

Gibbons

Feldman

Crane

et al . Migrating from a legacy fixed-format measure to CAT administration: calibrating the PHQ-9 to the PROMIS depression measures. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(9):1349-1357.

10.

Hays

Spritzer

Amtmann

et al . Upper-extremity and mobility subdomains from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) adult physical functioning item bank. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(11):2291-2296.

11.

Hays

Spritzer

Fries

Krishnan

Responsiveness and minimally important difference for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 20-item physical functioning short form in a prospective observational study of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(1):104-107.

12.

Houck

Flemister

et al . Preoperative PROMIS scores predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37(9):911-918.

13.

Hung

Baumhauer

Brodsky

et al . Psychometric comparison of the PROMIS physical function CAT with the FAAM and FFI for measuring patient-reported outcomes. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(6):592-599.

14.

Hung

Baumhauer

Latt

et al . Validation of PROMIS^® physical function computerized adaptive tests for orthopaedic foot and ankle outcome research. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(11):3466-3474.

15.

Hung

Clegg

Greene

Saltzman

CL.

Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients. J Orthop Res. 2011;29(6):947-953.

16.

Hung

Hon

Cheng

et al . Psychometric evaluation of the lower extremity computerized adaptive test, the modified Harris hip score, and the hip outcome score. Orthop J Sports Med. 2014;2(12):2325967114562191.

17.

Hung

Stuart

Higgins

Saltzman

Kubiak

EN.

Computerized adaptive testing using the PROMIS physical function item bank reduces test burden with less ceiling effects compared with the short musculoskeletal function assessment in orthopaedic trauma patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(8):439-443.

18.

Hunt

Alexander

Baumhauer

et al . The Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Outcomes Research (OFAR) network: feasibility of a multicenter network for patient outcomes assessment in foot and ankle. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(9):847-854.

19.

Morgan

Kallen

Okike

Lee

Vrahas

MS.

PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test compared with other upper extremity outcome measures in the evaluation of proximal humerus fractures in patients older than 60 years. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(6):257-263.

20.

Oude Voshaar

Ten Klooster

Glas

et al . Relative performance of commonly used physical function questionnaires in rheumatoid arthritis and a Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System computerized adaptive test. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014;66(10):2900-2908.

21.

Papuga

Beck

Kates

Schwarz

Maloney

MD.

Validation of GAITRite and PROMIS as high-throughput physical function outcome measures following ACL reconstruction. J Orthop Res. 2014;32(6):793-801.

22.

Rose

Bjorner

Gandek

et al . The PROMIS physical function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(5):516-526.

23.

Shahgholi

Yost

Kallmes

DF.

Correlation of the National Institutes of Health Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales and standard pain and functional outcomes in spine augmentation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33(11):2186-2190.

24.

Tyser

Beckmann

Franklin

et al . Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test in the upper extremity. J Hand Surg. 2014;39(10):2047-2051.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB

Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Data Collection in a Private Orthopedic Surgery Practice

Abstract

Background:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

Level of Evidence:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material