Following guidelines from the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute and using a mixed methods study, a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for both nerve trauma and compression affecting the hand, the Impact of a Hand Nerve Disorders (I-HaND) Scale, was developed. Face-to-face interviews with 14 patients and subsequent pilot-testing with 61 patients resulted in the development of the 32-item PROM. A longitudinal validation study with 82 patients assessed the psychometric properties of the I-HaND. Content and construct validity was confirmed by cognitive interviews with patients and through principal component analysis. The I-HaND has high internal consistency (α = 0.98) and excellent test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.97). Responsiveness statistics showed that the I-HaND can detect change over 3 months and discriminate between improvers and non-improvers. We conclude that the I-HaND can be used as a PROM for people with a range of hand nerve disorders.
AshwoodMJerosch-HeroldCShepstoneL. Learning to live with a hand nerve disorder: A constructed grounded theory. J Hand Ther.2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.jht.2017.10.015.
CanoSJBarrettLEZajicekJPHobartJC. Beyond the reach of traditional analyses: using Rasch to evaluate the DASH in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2011, 17: 214–22.
4.
CanoSJHobartJC. The problem with health measurement. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011, 5: 279–90.
5.
CharmazK. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage. 2006, 177.
6.
ChungKCHamillJBWaltersMRHaywardRA. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ): Assessment of responsiveness to clinical change. Ann Plast Surg. 1999, 42: 619–22.
7.
ChungKCPillsburyMSWaltersMRHaywardRA. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). J Hand Surg Am. 1998, 23: 575–87.
8.
DeVellisRF. Scale Development: theory and applications. 4th Edn. Los Angeles: Sage. 2017
9.
de VetHCTerweeCBMokkinkLBKnolDL. Measurement in Medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 2011, 328.
10.
FayersPMMachinD. Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. 2nd Edn. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. 2013, 568.
11.
Federal Drug Administration (2009) Guidance for Industry -Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labelling Claims. Rockville, MD, U.S.: Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, pp. 47.
12.
FrostMHReeveBBLiepaAMStaufferJWHaysRD. What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures?Value Health. 2007, 10: S94–S105.
13.
GuyattGWalterSNormanG. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987, 40: 171–8.
14.
HobartJCCanoSJWarnerTTThompsonAJ. What sample sizes for reliability and validity studies in neurology?J Neurol. 2012, 259: 2681–94.
15.
HobartJCCanoSJZajicekJPThompsonAJ. Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurol. 2007, 6: 1094–105.
16.
HudakPAmadioPBombardierC. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (Disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand). The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996, 29: 602–8.
17.
HustedJACookRJFarewellVTGladmanDD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000, 53: 459–68.
18.
Jerosch-Herold C, Mason R, Chojnowski AJ. A qualitative study of the experiences and expectations of surgery in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Ther. 2008, 21: 54–62.
19.
Khu KJ, Bernstein M, Midha R. Patients' Perceptions of Carpal Tunnel and Ulnar Nerve Decompression Surgery. Can J Neurol Sci. 2011, 38: 268–73.
20.
LevineDSimmonsBKorisM, et al.A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993, 75: 1585–92.
21.
MacDermidJC. Measurement of health outcomes following tendon and nerve repair. J Hand Ther. 2005, 18: 297–312.
22.
MacDermidJCGrewalR. Development and validation of the patient-rated ulnar nerve evaluation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013, 14: 146.
23.
MaceyACBurkeFDAbbottK, et al.Outcomes of hand surgery. British Society for Surgery of the Hand. J Hand Surg Br. 1995, 20: 841–55.
24.
Martin H. Patients' health beliefs and adaptation to carpal tunnel syndrome based on duration of symptomatic presentation. J Hand Ther. 2007, 20: 29–35.
25.
MokkinkLBTerweeCBPatrickDL, et al.The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010, 63: 737–45.
26.
MullinPALohrKNBresnahanBWMcNultyP. Applying cognitive design principles to formatting HRQOL instruments. Qual Life Res. 2000, 9: 13–27.
27.
NooraniAMRobertsDJMaloneAA, et al.Validation of the Stanmore percentage of normal shoulder assessment. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2012, 6: 9–14.
28.
NormanGRStratfordPRegehrG. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997, 50: 869–79.
29.
PatrickDLBurkeLBGwaltneyCJ, et al.Content validity-establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1-eliciting concepts for a new PRO Instrument. Value Health. 2011a, 14: 967–77.
30.
PatrickDLBurkeLBGwaltneyCJ, et al.Content validity-establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 2-assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011b, 14: 978–88.
31.
RosénBLundborgG. A model instrument for the documentation of outcome after nerve repair. J Hand Surg Am. 2000, 25: 535–43.
32.
StreinerDLNormanGR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th Edn. New York: Oxford University Press. 2008, 423.
33.
VordemvenneTLangerMOchmanSRaschkeMSchultM. Long-term results after primary microsurgical repair of ulnar and median nerve injuries. A comparison of common score systems. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2007, 109: 263–71.
34.
WangYSunithaMChungKC. How to measure outcomes of peripheral nerve surgery. Hand Clin. 2013, 29: 349–61.
35.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization, 2001. http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/ (10 September 17).
36.
WilliamsonPRAltmanDGBlazebyJM, et al.Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012, 13: 132.
37.
WillisGB. Cognitive interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. 2004, 335, London: Sage.
38.
WyrwichKNorquistJMLenderkingWRAcasterS. Industry Advisory Committee of International Society for Quality of Life. Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2013, 22: 475–83.
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.
