Readability of Orthopaedic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Is There a Fundamental Failure to Communicate?

Readability of Online Pediatric Orthopaedic Trauma Patient Education Materials

INTRODUCTION

The importance of web resources for educating orthopaedic trauma patients is well recognized. Yet these resources often exceed the sixth-grade reading level and are too complex for most patients to understand. This study examines the readability of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons' (AAOS) pediatric trauma-related educational content compared with similar materials from the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA).

METHODS

Eleven AAOS ( https://www.orthoinfo.org/ ) and nine POSNA ( https://orthokids.org ) pediatric trauma education articles were included. Articles' readability was assessed by two independent examiners using (1) the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) algorithms. The FKGL mean was compared with the sixth-grade level and the average American reading level using a one-sample t -test. A two-sample t -test evaluated the differences in readability between the AAOS and POSNA materials.

RESULTS

A total of 15 unique articles were included. Excellent agreement (>90%) was noted between reviewers for FKGL and FRE. The average (SD) FKGL for AAOS and POSNA articles were 8.5 (0.8) and 9.0 (1.5), respectively, and the FRE scores were 61.2 (3.8) for AAOS and 61.7 (7.7) for POSNA. Only one AAOS article met the sixth-grade reading level. The average readability levels of the AAOS and POSNA articles were markedly higher than the recommended sixth-grade level ( P < 0.001). No notable difference was found in FKGL ( P = 0.47) or FRE ( P = 0.89) when comparing AAOS and POSNA articles.

DISCUSSION

This study indicates that the readability of the AAOS pediatric trauma and POSNA trauma-related articles is well above that which is recommended for the general public, and this has remained so for more than a decade. Both POSNA and AAOS trauma education materials have high readability levels, potentially hindering patient understanding. Improving the readability of these widely used trauma education resources is overdue and will likely improve patient comprehension.

Does Patient Health Literacy Affect Patient Reported Outcome Measure Completion Method in Orthopaedic Patients?

Introduction

PROMIS® Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) is a testing tool for tracking patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) with a goal to improve individual and population outcomes. Patients' health literacy (HL) may affect how they are able to complete PROM. We hypothesized that patients with low HL were less likely both to complete surveys and to do so via online patient portal (OPP).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of 3926 orthopaedic patients in a rural state was performed. Completion rate and completion method both were subjected to log-binomial regressions with patient demographics and HL as predictor variables.

Results

PROM surveys were completed by 2166 (55.2%) of patients, including 512 completed via OPP and 1654 completed via in-clinic tablet (ICT). Compared to high HL patients, low HL patients had a 23% higher non-completion rate, and low HL completers were 63% less likely to use OPP. Age and gender had significant (P < 0.05) associations with completion method, but not completion rate, whereas Area Deprivation Index (ADI) had significant associations with both. Compared to White patients, Black patients had a 25% higher non-completion rate, and Black completers were 49% less likely to use OPP.

Discussion

Our analysis shows that health literacy, demographics, and socioeconomic status affect both whether and how patients fill out PROM surveys. Patients with low HL were less likely to complete PROM surveys, and less likely to use the OPP when they did.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that patients' health literacy, demographics, and socioeconomic status affect both whether they complete their PROMIS® CAT and what method they complete it with. Additional efforts should be made to understand these factors, accommodate patients, and facilitate accurate and complete PROM responses, especially in hospitals that serve diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients.

Readability of Patient-reported Outcome Measures Used in Plastic Surgery

Background

Patient-reported outcomes are essential to understanding success in plastic surgery procedures, many that aim to improve quality of life. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should be written at or below the sixth-grade reading level recommended by the American Medical Association. This study aimed to evaluate the readability of plastic surgery PROMs.

Methods

We conducted a literature review to identify validated, commonly used PROMs in plastic surgery. We extracted PROMs' text and instructions and analyzed readability using different approaches that estimate the grade level required to understand. Our primary outcome was the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index, which detects word complexity and expects 100% comprehension at the grade level rating assigned. We also included the Flesch-Kincaid grade level, Coleman-Liau index, and automated readability index.

Results

Forty-three PROMs met the inclusion criteria. The mean SMOG index was 8.2 (SD = 1.3), indicating an eighth-grade reading level. Mean reading grade levels measured by the Flesch-Kincaid grade level, Coleman-Liau index, and automated readability index ranged from third to sixth grade, although these may underestimate readability difficulties. Only 6 (14%) PROMs had a SMOG index at or below the sixth-grade level. PROM instructions had significantly higher reading levels than the questions/responses for all readability indexes (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

PROMs used in plastic surgery, including the instructions, exceed the reading level recommended by the American Medical Association. This may limit comprehension and accurate completion and compromise validity and reliability. PROMs should be written and designed to be accessible to patients of all literacy levels.

Readability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used in Voice Disorders

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate Turkish patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) used in voice disorders using different readability formulas and to examine the relationship between text-based features and readability values.

STUDY DESIGN

A search was conducted to identify published Turkish PRO questionnaires related to dysphonia that are completed by patients.

METHODS

A search was conducted to identify published PROM related to dysphonia that are completed by patients in a self-administered format. Reading grade levels were analyzed for voice-related PROM using the Ateşman readability and the Bezirci-Yılmaz new readability formulas as computed by a readability calculations software package. Text-based quantitative features are obtained. Descriptive statistics were also computed across the questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 14 PROMs were found. In the analysis, the mean of the Ateşman readability values of the PROM was calculated as 70.66 (±5.55). This value is defined as "easy," according to the Ateşman readability measures. The average Bezirci-Yılmaz new readability value is 6.03 (±1.07). This value corresponds to the sixth-grade reading level in the Turkish education system.

CONCLUSIONS

Results show that more than half of the PROMs in the Turkish language have the recommended reading level. PROMs allow health care professionals to objectively understand the patient's symptoms, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Therefore, it is critical that patients accurately understand and respond to these outcome measures. This is why developers should consider reading as a testable structure. Speech and language therapists should consider the reading level required to understand a specific PROM to obtain the most useful information for treatment planning and outcome assessments.

Readability Analysis of Spanish-Language Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopaedic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to quantify patient symptomatology when assessing intervention effectiveness as well as to guide patient-centered health-care management and research. Previous studies have analyzed the readability of PROMs used in orthopaedics in the English language; however, the readability of PROMs used in orthopaedics in the Spanish language has not been evaluated. Given the increasing number of Spanish-speaking individuals seeking orthopaedic care in the United States, it is imperative that PROMs are at an adequate reading level for patients to answer appropriately in their native language. This study aimed to assess the readability of publicly available Spanish-language PROMs used in orthopaedics.

METHODS

Searches of the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase databases were conducted to identify publicly available Spanish-language versions of PROMs used in orthopaedics. Additionally, the PROMIS Health Organization was contacted to obtain Spanish-language versions of the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) questionnaires. A total of 42 Spanish-language PROMs were identified and included in this study. The text of each PROM was inserted into multilingual readability software (legible.es), which analyzed the readability of each PROM using the Fernández Huerta and Índice de Legibilidad de Flesch-Szigriszt (INFLESZ) readability formulas. The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the raw readability scores were calculated for the PROMs. The percentage of PROMs at or below the 6th-grade reading level was also calculated.

RESULTS

The mean readability of PROMs using the INFLESZ formula was at a 7th to 10th-grade reading level (mean = 63, SD = 16), and the mean readability using the Fernández Huerta formula was 68 (SD = 15). On average, 57% of the PROMs used in orthopaedics were at or below the INFLESZ 6th-grade readability level.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately half of Spanish-language PROMs used in orthopaedics are written at a reading level that does not meet the National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Association recommendations at or below the 6th-grade level. PROM developers and translators should consider the importance of readability when translating PROMs, to maximize their use and efficacy among orthopaedic patients speaking that language.

A Content and Readability Analysis of Genitourinary and Sexual Health-Related Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Gender-Affirming Care

OBJECTIVE

To the evaluate the readability and comprehensiveness of genitourinary and sexual health-related patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) used in gender-affirming care.

METHODS

Common PROMs that measure genitourinary and sexual health-related outcomes in gender-affirming care literature were identified from six recent systematic reviews. Readability analysis was completed at the level of individual items and full scale using established readability assessment tool, including Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Score (GF), Coleman Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index. The concepts measured by the PROMs were evaluated for comprehensiveness.

RESULTS

Twenty-five PROMs were included, of which 12 assessed genitourinary outcomes and 13 assessed sexual health outcomes. A total of seven genitourinary domains and eight sexual health domains were identified during concept mapping. Readability analysis showed a median PROM grade level of 9.0 and 9.5 in genitourinary and sexual PROMs, respectively. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sexual Function and Satisfaction v2.0 had the lowest median reading grade level of 5.7, and the Female Sexual Function Index has the highest median reading grade level of 13.9. No single PROM was found to be comprehensive. Multiple PROMs contained double-barreled items or used outdated terminology.

CONCLUSION

Most PROMs used in the genital gender-affirming literature failed to meet the readability recommendations for patient-facing material and were culturally unfit for use in transgender and gender-diverse individuals. None of the PROMs were found to be comprehensive for evaluating outcomes of gender-affirming care. Validated gender-affirming care-specific PROMs that are comprehensible, comprehensive, and relevant are urgently needed.

Low socioeconomic status is associated with worse treatment outcomes in patients with Achilles tendinopathy

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether there is a difference in symptom severity at baseline and 24 weeks follow-up between conservatively managed patients with Achilles tendinopathy (AT) with low socioeconomic status (SES) compared with those with high SES.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, 200 patients with AT were included and treated according to current guidelines. We linked a neighbourhood SES indicator based on income, employment and education level and divided the patient population into quintiles, with Q1 being the highest SES and Q5 the lowest. Symptom severity at baseline and follow-up was assessed using the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment-Achilles (VISA-A) score. Treatment adherence was not measured. We used a general linear model and the mean VISA-A scores at baseline and at 6, 12 and 24 weeks follow-up were compared between Q1 (n=45) and Q5 (n=39), while adjusting for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), Ankle Activity Score, symptom duration and baseline VISA-A score.

RESULTS

Patients had a median age of 51 years and median BMI of 25.4, 40% were female. 74%, 70% and 58% of the participants completed the VISA-A at 6, 12 and 24 weeks, respectively. VISA-A scores at baseline were similar for Q1 and Q5 (43.9 and 41.8, p=0.591). At 24 weeks, there was a mean (95% CI) difference of 11.2 (1.0 to 21.3, p=0.032) points in favour of Q1 on the VISA-A score.

CONCLUSION

AT patients with low SES may have worse outcomes when treated using the current guidelines. The difference in VISA-A score at 24 weeks is larger than the minimal clinically important difference and might be clinically relevant, but comes with uncertainty due to the large dispersion in the data. Clinicians need to consider the impact of social inequality when developing and implementing treatment plans.

Calculating ex-ante Utilities From the Neck Disability Index Score: Quantifying the Value of Care For Cervical Spine Pathology

STUDY DESIGN

General population utility valuation study.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a technique for calculating utilities from the Neck Disability Index (NDI) score.

METHODS

We recruited a sample of 1200 adults from a market research panel. Using an online discrete choice experiment (DCE), participants rated 10 choice sets based on NDI health states. A multi-attribute utility function was estimated using a mixed multinomial-logit regression model (MIXL). The sample was partitioned into a training set used for model fitting and validation set used for model evaluation.

RESULTS

The regression model demonstrated good predictive performance on the validation set with an AUC of .77 (95% CI: .76-.78). The regression model was used to develop a utility scoring rubric for the NDI. Regression results also revealed that participants did not regard all NDI items as equally important. The rank order of importance was (in decreasing order): pain intensity = work; personal care = headache; concentration = sleeping; driving; recreation; lifting; and lastly reading.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a simple technique for converting the NDI score to utilities and quantify the relative importance of individual NDI items. The ability to evaluate quality-adjusted life-years using these utilities for cervical spine pain and disability could facilitate economic analysis and aid in allocation of healthcare resources.

Development and initial validation of the Orthotic Patient-Reported Outcomes-Mobility (OPRO-M): An item bank for evaluating mobility of people who use lower-limb orthoses

Lower limb orthoses (LLOs) are externally-applied leg braces that are designed to improve or maintain mobility in people with a variety of health conditions that affect lower limb function. Clinicians and researchers are therefore often motivated to measure LLO users' mobility to select or assess the effectiveness of these devices. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can provide insights into important aspects of a LLO user's mobility for these purposes. However, few PROMs are available to measure mobility of LLO users. Those few that exist have issues that may limit their clinical or scientific utility. The objective of this study was to create a population-specific item bank for measuring mobility of LLO users. Previously-developed candidate items were administered in a cross-sectional study to a large national sample of LLO users. Responses from study participants (n = 1036) were calibrated to a graded response statistical model using Item Response Theory methods. A set of 39 items was found to be unidimensional, locally independent, and function without bias due to characteristics unrelated to mobility. The set of final calibrated items, termed the Orthotic Patient-Reported Outcomes-Mobility (OPRO-M) item bank, was evaluated for initial evidence of convergent, divergent, and known groups construct validity. OPRO-M was strongly correlated with existing PROMs designed to measure aspects of physical function. Conversely, OPRO-M was weakly correlated with PROMs that measured unrelated constructs, like sleep disturbance and depression. OPRO-M also showed an ability to differentiate groups with expected mobility differences. Two fixed-length short forms were created from the OPRO-M item bank. Items on the short forms were selected based on statistical and clinical criteria. Collectively, results from this study indicate that OPRO-M can effectively measure mobility of LLO users, and OPRO-M short forms can now be recommended for use in routine clinical practice and research studies.

Research Trends of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopedic Medical Practices: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study

Background and Objectives: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), also known as self-report measures, are critical tools for evaluating health outcomes by gathering information directly from patients without external interpretation. There has been a growing trend in the number of publications focusing on PROMs in orthopedic-related research. This study aims to identify the most valuable publications, influential journals, leading researchers, and core countries in this field using bibliometric analysis, providing researchers with an understanding of the current state and future trends of PROMs in orthopedic research. Materials and Methods: All PROMs in orthopedic-related publications from 1991 to 2022 were obtained from the WoSCC database. R software (version 4.2.2), VOSviewer (version 1.6.17), and Microsoft Excel (version 2303) were used for the bibliometric and visual analysis. Results: A total of 2273 publication records were found from 1991 to 2022. The results indicated that the United States (US) has made significant contributions to orthopedic-related PROMs. The majority of active research institutions are located in the US. J ORTHOP RES has published the most articles. J BONE JOINT SURG AM has the highest total citations. Conclusions: Our study provides a valuable reference for further exploration of the application of PROMs in orthopedics. PROMs have emerged as an increasingly popular area of research within the field of orthopedics, both in clinical practice and academic research. We conducted a bibliometric analysis in terms of journals, authors, countries, and institutions in this field. Additionally, we analyzed the potentialities and advantages of using PROMs in orthopedic research. There is an increasing trend towards using network-based or short message service (SMS)-based electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in orthopedic medical practices. It is anticipated that the role of PROMs in psychological and mental health research and telemedicine will continue to grow in importance.

Development of an item bank for measuring prosthetic mobility in people with lower limb amputation: The Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M)

BACKGROUND

Achieving mobility with a prosthesis is a common post-amputation rehabilitation goal and primary outcome in prosthetic research studies. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available to measure prosthetic mobility have practical and psychometric limitations that inhibit their use in clinical care and research.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a brief, clinically meaningful, and psychometrically robust PROM to measure prosthetic mobility.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study was conducted to administer previously developed candidate items to a national sample of lower limb prosthesis users. Items were calibrated to an item response theory model and two fixed-length short forms were created. Instruments were assessed for readability, effective range of measurement, agreement with the full item bank, ceiling and floor effects, convergent validity, and known groups validity.

SETTING

Participants were recruited using flyers posted in hospitals and prosthetics clinics across the United States, magazine advertisements, notices posted to consumer websites, and direct mailings.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult prosthesis users (N = 1091) with unilateral lower limb amputation due to traumatic or dysvascular causes.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Candidate items (N = 105) were administered along with the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Brief Profile, Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire - Mobility Subscale, and Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale, and questions created to characterize respondents.

RESULTS

A bank of 44 calibrated self-report items, termed the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M), was produced. Clinical and statistical criteria were used to select items for 7- and 12-item short forms. PLUS-M instruments had an 8th grade reading level, measured with precision across a wide range of respondents, exhibited little-to-no ceiling or floor effects, correlated expectedly with scores from existing PROMs, and differentiated between groups of respondents expected to have different levels of mobility.

CONCLUSION

The PLUS-M appears to be well suited to measuring prosthetic mobility in people with lower limb amputation. PLUS-M instruments are recommended for use in clinical and research settings.

The current utilization of the patient-reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS) in isolated or combined total knee arthroplasty populations

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential for clinical research and patient-centric care because they allow us to capture patient perspectives on their health condition. In knee arthroplasty, PROMs are frequently used to assess the risks and benefits of new interventions, surgical approaches, and other management strategies. A few examples of PROMs used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) include the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) (collectively referred to as "legacy" PROMs). More recently, attention has been brought to another PROM called the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). PROMIS was developed by the National Institute of Health (NIH) and has over 300 domains assessing various aspects of patient health, including pain, physical function, and mental health. With the use of PROMIS increasing in TKA literature, there is a need to review the advancements being made in understanding and applying PROMIS for this population. Thus, the purpose of this study is to provide insight on the utilization, advantages, and disadvantages of PROMIS within the field of knee arthroplasty and to provide a comparison to legacy PROMs.

Equity-Driven Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Musculoskeletal Care: Advancing Value for All

ABSTRACT

The clinical use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in musculoskeletal care is expanding, encompassing both individual patient management and population-level applications. However, without thoughtful implementation, we risk introducing or exacerbating disparities in care processes or outcomes. We outline examples of opportunities, challenges, and priorities throughout PROM implementation to equitably advance value-based care at both the patient and population level. Balancing standardization with tailored strategies can enable the large-scale implementation of PROMs while optimizing care processes and outcomes for all patients.

The relationship between musculoskeletal health literacy and upper extremity patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the setting of atraumatic shoulder pain

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly utilized to assess patient-derived orthopaedic health status and function. The prevalence of limited musculoskeletal health literacy (MHL) has been demonstrated to be high within the orthopaedic literature. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between MHL and upper extremity-specific PROMs and to determine which patient- and symptom-related factors affect baseline PROMs in patients with atraumatic shoulder pain.

HYPOTHESIS

Patients with limited MHL would demonstrate lower median scores on baseline PROMs compared with those with adequate MHL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

New patients with atraumatic shoulder pain presenting to an academic practice were administered the Literacy in Musculoskeletal Problems (LiMP), in addition to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH), and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) questionnaires. A detailed physical exam and history was performed by a fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon. Demographic patient data, in addition to prior imaging and orthopaedic treatment, was tabulated. The association between demographics, pain-related variables, and MHL with the ASES, SANE, and QuickDASH scores were examined using Spearman correlation coefficients for continuous variables and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for categorical variables. Non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to examine the independent association of predictor variables with PROMs.

RESULTS

A total of 439 patients met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. The mean age was 58.8±12.6years (range: 24-93) with 162 (37%) being men. Overall, 172 patients (39.2%) attained a college degree or higher and 183 (41.7%) were currently employed. MHL was significantly associated with ASES (p=0.03), but not with the QuickDASH (p=0.75) or SANE score (p=0.16). Similarly, age, having been in the medical profession or having previously visited an orthopaedist were not associated with PROMs, while employment status correlated to the SANE score (p=0.002). Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain level demonstrated varying strengths of association with each of the scores [ASES (r=-0.729, p<0.001), QuickDASH (r=0.557, p<0.001), and SANE (r=-0.430, p<0.001)]. MHL demonstrated no association with initial patient-derived treatment selection.

DISCUSSION

The SANE and QuickDASH may be administered to patients presenting for atraumatic shoulder pain in the outpatient setting regardless of MHL. Further research should be focused on the utility of the ASES instrument amongst patients with lower educational levels and/or limited MHL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II; diagnostic.

The patient-reported outcomes measurement information systems (PROMIS®) physical function and its derivative measures in adults: a systematic review of content validity

PURPOSE

This study aims to systematically review and critically appraise the content validity of the adult versions of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) item bank and its derivative measures in any adult population.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in October 2021 for studies on measurement properties of PROMIS-PF measures in an adult population. Studies were included if the study described the development of a PROMIS-PF measure or investigated its relevance, comprehensiveness, or comprehensibility. Assessment of the methodological quality of eligible studies, rating of results, and summarizing evidence was performed following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology for assessing content validity. A modified GRADE approach was used to determine the level of evidence.

RESULTS

Three development studies and eight studies on the content validity of one or more of the PROMIS-PF measures were identified. The methodological quality of most studies was rated doubtful. There was low to high level evidence for sufficient relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of most PROMIS-PF measures for healthy seniors and various disease populations. We found low to moderate level evidence for insufficient relevance of PROMIS-PF measures for patients with conditions that affected only one body part, and insufficient comprehensibility of the PROMIS-PF measures for minority elderly.

CONCLUSION

Most PROMIS-PF measures demonstrate sufficient content validity in healthy seniors and various disease populations. However, the quality of this evidence is generally low to moderate, due to limitations in the methodological quality of the studies.

Calculating Ex-ante Utilities From the Modified Japanese Orthopedic Association Score: A Prerequisite for Quantifying the Value of Care for Cervical Myelopathy

STUDY DESIGN

General population utility valuation study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop a technique for calculating utilities from the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) Score.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The ability to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) would enhance treatment decision making and facilitate economic analysis. QALYs are calculated using utilities.

METHODS

We recruited a sample of 760 adults from a market research panel. Using an online discrete choice experiment, participants rated eight choice sets based on mJOA health states. A multiattribute utility function was estimated using a mixed multinomial-logit regression model. The sample was partitioned into a training set used for model fitting and validation set used for model evaluation.

RESULTS

The regression model demonstrated good predictive performance on the validation set with an area under the curve of 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.80-0.82)). The regression model was used to develop a utility scoring rubric for the mJOA. Regression results revealed that participants did not regard all mJOA domains as equally important. The rank order of importance was (in decreasing order): lower extremity motor function, upper extremity motor function, sphincter dysfunction, upper extremity sensation.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a simple technique for converting the mJOA score to utilities and quantify the importance of mJOA domains. The ability to evaluate QALYs for DCM will facilitate economic analysis and patient counseling. Clinicians should heed these findings and offer treatments that maximize function in the attributes viewed most important by patients.Level of Evidence: 3.

1-year trajectories of patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty: Patient reported outcomes and resource needs according to education level

Background

Objectives were first to evaluate by education level one-year trajectories of pain, function and general health, as well as hospital resource and medication needs in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA); and second, to evaluate whether outcome differences are related to existing baseline differences in health and disease severity.

Methods

We included all primary THAs from a public hospital-based prospective arthroplasty registry, performed in a high-income country 2010 to 2017. Education was classified in three levels: ≤8years of schooling (low), 9-12years (medium), and ≥13years (high). Pain and function prior to and one-year after surgery were assessed with the Western Ontario McMaster Universities score (WOMAC) and general health with the 12-item short-form health survey (SF-12).

Results

Overall 963 patients were included, 340 (35.3%) with low, 306 (31.8%) with medium, and 317 (32.9%) with high education. With increasing educational level preoperative scores for pain, function and SF-12 mental health component increased. One year after surgery improvement was observed in all education categories for WOMAC pain and function, SF-12 mental and physical component. However, absolute postoperative scores remained lower in all four domains for the low education group. After adjustment for baseline characteristics differences were much attenuated and no longer significant. There was also greater resource need in low educated patients.

Conclusions

The inferior absolute results one year after surgery in less educated patients were largely due to older age, worse preoperative health and greater symptom severity calling for greater attention to timely and equal management, for more targeted perioperative care and increased support for the lower education group.

Validity, Responsiveness, and Reliability of the ACL-QOL in an Adolescent Population

BACKGROUND

The anterior cruciate ligament quality of life (ACL-QOL) score is a disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure that assesses patients with ACL deficient and reconstructed knees. The ACL-QOL has demonstrated validity, responsiveness, and reliability in adult populations but has yet to be specifically evaluated in adolescent patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity, responsiveness, and reliability of the ACL-QOL in an adolescent population.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2015, questionnaires from 294 consecutive adolescent patients consented for an ACL reconstruction were collected from an orthopaedic sport medicine clinic. The ACL-QOL was administered preoperatively, and at 6, 12, and 24 months following primary ACL reconstruction. To assess content validity, the Cronbach α and floor and ceiling effects were measured. Question reading level was measured with an online tool (https://readable.com/). Responsiveness was assessed with a 1-way analysis of variance to compare the preoperative and postoperative time periods. A test-retest strategy with completion of the ACL-QOL twice within 3 weeks was used to assess reliability using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 2,k) and the SEM.

RESULTS

The ACL-QOL demonstrated high content validity with a Cronbach αbetween 0.93 and 0.97, with no evidence of floor or ceiling effects at any study time point. The mean readability grade level was calculated to be 6.9, along with a readability score of 68. The ACL-QOL scores revealed a statistically significant improvement over time (P<0.001) with a Cohen d of 0.56, indicating a large effect size. Test-retest reliability revealed an ICC (2,k) of 0.997 (95% confidence interval=0.992-0.999).

CONCLUSIONS

The ACL-QOL demonstrated content validity, responsiveness to change, and reliability in an adolescent ACL reconstruction population. The readability of the ACL-QOL is acceptable for adolescents with an ACL injury. The ACL-QOL is a valid, responsive, and reliable patient-reported outcome measure that can be used in an adolescent population with ACL deficiency or following ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Does change in language change the properties of a shortened score previously validated in its complete version? Validation of the French versions of the HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 scores in primary knee and hip arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

The HOOS and KOOS scoring questionnaires comprise respectively 40 and 42 items; a shorter 12-item version was recently developed, but remains to be validated in a French-speaking population. We therefore conducted a prospective study: 1) to determine whether the new 12-item versions in French are equivalent to the longer HOOS and KOOS versions, and 2) to validate the French-language HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 patient-reported outcome measures in a population of primary total hip and knee arthroplasty: validity, reliability, and responsiveness.

HYPOTHESIS

The change in language in a score already validated in its long version does not alter its properties in the short version.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred patients (59 males, 41 females) undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty and 100 patients (43 males, 57 females) undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty were prospectively included. They filled out the original HOOS or KOOS questionnaires, their simplified versions (PS: Physical function Short form; JR: Joint Replacement) and the short HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 versions, and also the Oxford-12 score assessing the affected joint, preoperatively, then at 6-12 months.

RESULTS

The 100% response rate confirmed ease of use. There were no redundant items. There were strong correlations between the 12-item and longer versions (>0.9). The HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 scores were reliable and valid: 1) there were no ceiling or floor effects for pre- or postoperative KOOS-12 scores, although a ceiling effect was found for HOOS-12 postoperatively (20% of patients having maximum scores of 100); 2) internal consistency was confirmed, with Cronbach alpha>0.8; 3) external consistency between Oxford-12 and HOOS-12/KOOS-12 was excellent, with Pearson correlation coefficient>0.8. Sensitivity to pre-/postoperative change was confirmed, with effect size>0.8.

DISCUSSION

The present study confirmed the usefulness of this new 12-item form for HOOS and KOOS. Properties were identical between the French- and English-language versions, authorising everyday use of these simpler versions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; prospective study without control group.

Communications in the time of a pandemic: the readability of documents for public consumption

OBJECTIVE

Government communications in a crisis can influence public health outcomes. This research aimed to investigate if written communications of the most commonly sought sources of COVID-19 information available on the internet have readability levels commensurate with those of the general public.

METHODS

Online documents from the World Health Organization (WHO), and the governments of Australia, the UK and the US were assessed for readability using an online instrument that calculated scores for the Flesch Reading Ease Score, the SMOG Index and the Readability Consensus Grade Level.

RESULTS

Similar to the previous research, most documents assessed had a readability standard that was at or above the recommended grade level, and as such inaccessible to substantial portions of the general public. A one-way ANOVA with post hoc tests revealed significant differences among the data, with Australian documents significantly more difficult to read than those from the UK and US.

CONCLUSIONS

Government departments need to consider their audience and monitor readability of the documents they produce to ensure that readers can understand them. Implications for public health: Health communications need to be written at a level appropriate for the targeted population in order to be fit for purpose.

Psychometric properties of a brief self-reported health-related quality of life measure (HRQoL-IDD) for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities

Background

To encourage self‐determination and address health disparities among persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities, clinicians and researchers rely on self‐reported measures like health‐related quality of life (HRQoL). This study evaluated the psychometric properties of a theory‐driven self‐reported HRQoL measure for adults requiring mild to moderate support related to intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Method

224 volunteers completed 42 quality of life items developed with extensive input from persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities, family members/caregivers, and providers. The 5‐point Likert scale format with visual images of fluid‐filled cups represented the range of responses.

Results

Exploratory and Unrestricted Factor Analyses yielded 16 HRQoL items with 4 subscales: Functional Well‐Being, Emotional Well‐Being, Social Well‐Being, and Healthy Decision‐making. The HRQoL‐IDD explained 62.8% of variance, had satisfactory internal consistency (0.73–0.83), stability of reponses, and reading level (2nd grade, ages 7‐8).

Conclusions

The HRQoL‐IDD is a promising measure of self‐reported HRQoL for use in community‐based settings for persons requiring mild to moderate support related to intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Prediction of post-interventional physical function in diabetic foot ulcer patients using patient reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS)

BACKGROUND

Infected diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) patients present with an impaired baseline physical function (PF) that can be further compromised by surgical intervention to treat the infection. The impact of surgical interventions on Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) PF within the DFU population has not been investigated. We hypothesize that preoperative PROMIS scores (PF, Pain Interference (PI), Depression) in combination with relevant clinical factors can be utilized to predict postoperative PF in DFU patients.

METHODS

DFU patients from a single academic physician's practice between February 2015 and November 2018 were identified (n = 240). Ninety-two patients met inclusion criteria with complete follow-up and PROMIS computer adaptive testing records. Demographic and clinical factors, procedure performed, and wound healing status were collected. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, Chi-Squared tests and multidimensional modelling were applied to all variables' pre- and postoperative values to assess patients' postoperative PF.

RESULTS

The mean age was 60.5 (33-96) years and mean follow-up was 4.7 (3-12) months. Over 70 % of the patients' initial PF were 2-3 standard deviations below the US population (n = 49; 28). Preoperative PF (p <  0.01), PI (p < 0.01), Depression (p <  0.01), CRF (p <  0.02) and amputation level (p <  0.04) showed significant univariate correlation with postoperative PF. Multivariate model (r = 0.55) showed that the initial PF (p =  0.004), amputation level (p =  0.008), and wound healing status (p =  0.001) predicted postoperative PF.

CONCLUSIONS

Majority of DFU patients present with poor baseline PF. Preoperative PROMIS scores (PF, PI, Depression) are predictive of postoperative PROMIS PF in DFU patients. Postoperative patient's physical function can be assessed by PF_{postoperative} = 29.42 + 0.34 (PF_initial) - 5.87 (Not Healed) - 2.63 (Amputation Category). This algorithm can serve as a valuable tool for predicting post-operative physical function and setting expectations.

Use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by orthopedic surgeons in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

There is increasing literature on the usefulness of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), but far fewer studies to determine their use by orthopedic surgeons and the barriers they face in applying PROMs in their daily clinical activity.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study using a questionnaire that was distributed in both soft and hard copy formats to a sample of 262 orthopedic surgeons. Participants included orthopedic surgeons who are employed by the Ministry of Health (MOH) in Riyadh and the Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire was distributed through on-site visitations to orthopedic departments in MOH hospitals as well as through online correspondence by email, WhatsApp, and social media.

RESULTS

The study sample included 262 orthopedic surgeons (13.7% females and 86.3% males). Surgeons aged < 34, 35-44, and 45-54 years old represented 28.66%, 38.9%, and 20.2% of the study sample, respectively. The majority of the included surgeons did not use PROMs (69.1%), and some (17.2%) used it for research purposes. Only 5% used it regularly in daily clinical work.

CONCLUSION

The clinical use of PROMs among orthopedic surgeons was negligible, even though an overwhelming majority were interested in using PROMs. The reasons provided included a lack of knowledge on how to use PROMs and the perception that it is too time-consuming to add to regular clinical routine. There should be more efforts towards training surgeons on how to use PROMs, whereas increasing compatibility with existing software tools used by MOH hospitals may help offset time-related reservations.

Readability of patient-reported outcome measures for chronic rhinosinusitis and skull base diseases

OBJECTIVE

Outcome measures in healthcare that presume a higher level of patient health and overall literacy may inadequately estimate the disease experiences of less-educated patients and further disadvantage them. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are widely used communication tools for clinical practice and are often used to evaluate and guide management for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and skull base diseases. However, their readability and subsequent incomprehensibility for patients have not been assessed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the readability of commonly used PROMs for these conditions and whether they meet recommended readability levels.

METHODS

Three readability measures, Gunning Fog, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and FORCAST were used in the evaluation of commonly used PROMs for CRS and skull base disease. PROMs with sixth-grade readability level or lower were considered to meet health literacy experts' recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 11 PROMs were reviewed (8 CRS, 3 skull base). Gunning Fog consistently estimated the easiest readability, whereas FORCAST the most difficult. One hundred percent of CRS and 67% of skull base PROMs were above National Institutes of Health and health literacy experts' recommended reading levels. PROMs developed more recently had easier readability.

CONCLUSION

PROMs are important clinical tools in otolaryngology that help guide management of disease for improved patient-centered care. Like many other fields of medicine, those used in otolaryngology are beyond recommended reading levels. Development of PROMs in the future should meet recommended readability levels to fully assess the disease experience of our patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 130:2305-2310, 2020.

A SANE Approach to Outcome Collection? Comparing the Performance of Single- Versus Multiple-Question Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) exist to measure outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA) but can be limited by patient-perceived burden and completion rates. We analyzed whether the modified single assessment numerical evaluation (M-SANE), a one-question PROM, would perform similarly to multiple-question PROMs among patients undergoing primary THA.

METHODS

Patients undergoing THA completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-10 (PROMIS-10), the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score Junior (HOOS-Jr), and M-SANE questionnaires both preoperatively and postoperatively. The M-SANE assessment asked patients to assess their hip on a scale from 0 to 10, with 10 being the best possible score. Validity of M-SANE compared with other PROMs was determined by Spearman's correlation and floor and ceiling effects. Responsiveness was analyzed using standardized response mean (SRM).

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty six patients with at least 1-year follow-up were reviewed. The average M-SANE score improved from 3.3 preoperatively to 7.1 at one year postoperatively. There was moderate to strong correlation at one-year follow-up between the M-SANE and HOOS-Jr (ρ = 0.75, P < .001) and PROMIS-10 physical component summary (ρ = 0.63, P < .001). Floor and ceiling effects of the M-SANE (floor 2.0%, ceiling 21.3%) were comparable to the HOOS-Jr (floor 0.0%, ceiling 20.8%). The responsiveness of the M-SANE after THA (SRM = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.79-1.33) was comparable to HOOS-Jr (SRM = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.08-1.59) and superior to PROMIS-10 physical component summary (SRM = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.55-0.74).

CONCLUSION

The M-SANE has performed similarly across multiple psychometric properties compared with more burdensome PROMs in assessing longitudinal patient-reported outcomes after THA.

Establishing User Error on the Patient-Reported Component of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score

Background:

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score is a patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire developed to facilitate communication among international investigators and to allow comparison of outcomes for patients with shoulder disabilities. Although this PRO measure has been deemed easy to read and understand, patients may make mistakes when completing the questionnaire.

Purpose:

To evaluate the frequency of potential mistakes made by patients completing the ASES score.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A prospective cross-sectional study was performed for 600 ASES questionnaires completed by patients upon their first visit to 1 of 2 clinic locations (Australian vs Canadian site). Two categories of potential errors were predefined, and then differences in error rates were compared based on demographics (age, sex, and location). To determine whether these methods were reliable, an independent, third reviewer evaluated a subset of questionnaires separately. The interrater reliability was evaluated through use of the Cohen kappa.

Results:

The mean patient age was 49.9 years, and 63% of patients were male. The Cohen kappa was high for both evaluation methods used, at 0.831 and 0.918. On average, 17.9% of patients made at least 1 potential mistake, while an additional 10.4% of patients corrected their own mistakes. No differences in total error rate were found based on baseline demographics. Canadians and Australians had similar rates of error.

Conclusion:

To ensure the accuracy of the ASES score, this questionnaire should be double checked, as potential mistakes are too frequently made. This attentiveness will ensure that the ASES score remains a valid, reliable, and responsive tool to be used for further shoulder research.

Operative Intervention Does Not Change Pain Perception in Patients With Diabetic Foot Ulcers

Researchers investigated pain perception in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) by analyzing pre- and postoperative physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and depression domains of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). They hypothesized that 1) because of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), a majority of patients with DFUs would have high PROMIS PI scores unchanged by operative intervention, and 2) the initially assessed PI, PF, and depression levels would be correlated with final outcomes. Seventy-five percent of patients with DFUs reported pain, most likely because of painful DPN. Those who reported high PI and low PF were likely to report depression. PF, PI, and depression levels were unchanged after operative intervention or healing of DFUs.

Patient Preferences for Plain Radiographs in the Setting of Atraumatic Shoulder Pain: Which Factors Influence Their Decision?

INTRODUCTION

Plain radiographs of the shoulder are routinely obtained for patients presenting with atraumatic shoulder pain, although the diagnostic utility of this imaging modality is unclear. Despite this, patients often prefer to obtain radiographs and may associate them with a more satisfactory visit.

METHODS

New patients presenting with atraumatic shoulder pain were provided with information regarding the potential advantages and disadvantages of plain radiographs as part of their visit. Patients then decided whether to receive radiographs and baseline patient demographics were collected. A detailed physical examination and history was performed by a fellowship-trained provider, and a preliminary diagnosis and tentative treatment plan was formulated. The radiographs were then reviewed to determine whether the diagnosis and treatment plan was altered by addition of the radiographs. Patients who opted for radiographs then reported whether they felt the radiographs aided in diagnosis and treatment and whether the addition of the radiograph influenced their visit satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 220 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 121 patients (55%) requested a radiograph. The mean age was 57.1 ± 16.1 years (range, 18 to 91 years). Lack of bachelor's degree (odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 6.2; P = 0.01), lack of previous contralateral shoulder pain (OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.0 to 8.2; P = 0.0001), and lack of a previous shoulder radiograph (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 4.1 to 16.9; P < 0.0001) or MRI within the last 6 months (OR, 6.2; 95% CI, 1.4 to 26.8; P = 0.01) were independently associated with patient preference to obtain radiographs for atraumatic shoulder pain. Of the 121 patients who requested radiographs, 117 (96.7%) felt that radiographs improved their satisfaction.

DISCUSSION

Patients who obtained radiographs overwhelmingly reported its importance in improving visit satisfaction and diagnostic accuracy. Given the increasing emphasis on shared decision making, further study of patient factors influencing the decision to obtain routine radiographs will lead to more efficient practice management and potentially improved patient satisfaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II (Diagnostic).

Readability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Head and Neck Oncology

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are communication tools to help patients convey their disease experience to medical providers and guide management decisions. However, the utility of healthcare outcome measures is dependent on patient literacy and readability of PROMs. If written for a more advanced literacy level, they can misestimate symptoms and add significant barriers to care, especially in the underserved. However, readability of head and neck (H&N) oncology PROMs has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the readability of H&N oncology PROMs to assess whether they meet recommended readability levels.

STUDY DESIGN

Bibliometric review.

METHODS

Three readability measures: Gunning Fog, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and FORCAST were used to evaluate the readability level of commonly used H&N PROMs. PROMs with sixth grade readability level or lower were considered to meet the recommendations of health literacy experts.

RESULTS

Eight H&N oncology PROMs were reviewed. None of H&N PROMs met health literacy experts' and National Institutes of Health recommended reading levels. Gunning Fog consistently estimated easiest readability and FORCAST the most difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMs are important clinical tools that drive patient-centric care in H&N oncology. All H&N PROMs are written above recommended reading levels and do not meet suggested standards. Future PROMs should be written with easier readability to accurately convey patients' H&N oncology disease experiences.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 2020.

A One-Question Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Is Comparable to Multiple-Question Measures in Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important for tracking outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) but can be limited by time constraints and patient compliance. We sought to evaluate the utility of the one-question, modified single assessment numerical evaluation (M-SANE) score in TKA patients compared to legacy PROMs.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TKA completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-10 (PROMIS-10), the Knee Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score Junior (KOOS Jr), and M-SANE (modified-SANE) assessments both preoperatively and postoperatively. The M-SANE score asked patients to rate their native or prosthetic knee on a scale from 0 to 10, with 10 being the best function. M-SANE validity was determined by the Spearman's correlation between the collected PROMs and the Bland-Altman plots. PROM responsiveness was assessed using the standardized response mean.

RESULTS

In total, 217 patients completed PROMs preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively. Floor and ceiling effects of the M-SANE were higher than other PROMs but still relatively low (4%-11%). There was a moderate to strong correlation at nearly all time points between the M-SANE and KOOS Jr (ρ = 0.44-0.78, P < .001). There was a weak correlation between the M-SANE and PROMIS physical component summary at the preoperative evaluation (ρ = 0.28) but a strong correlation at 1-year follow up (0.65, P < .001). The long-term responsiveness of the M-SANE to TKA (standardized response mean [SRM] = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-1.17) was comparable to both the KOOS Jr (SRM = 1.19, 95% CI 1.00-1.38) and PROMIS physical component summary (SRM = 0.82, 95% CI 0.74-0.91). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that the M-SANE and KOOS Jr capture combined knee pain and functionality differently.

CONCLUSION

The M-SANE score was comparable to validated multiple-question PROMs in TKA patients. The demonstrated validity of the M-SANE, as well as its comparable responsiveness to more lengthy PROMs, highlights its use as a one-question PROM for assessment of patient undergoing TKA.

Constructing Item Banks for Measuring Quality of Life in Refractive Error

SIGNIFICANCE

Existing patient-reported outcome instruments in refractive error are paper-based questionnaires. They are not comprehensive and psychometrically robust. This study has identified the content of the refractive error-specific item banks that aim to provide comprehensive and scientific measurement of refractive error-specific quality of life.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to identify minimally representative, optimally informative, and efficient sets of items for measuring quality of life in people with refractive error.

METHODS

First, items were identified from existing patient-reported outcome instruments. Second, items were developed from qualitative studies with people with refractive error (48 and 101 in-depth interviews in Australia and Nepal, respectively). Third, classification and selection of items were done based on a set of systematic criteria using an iterative process of binning and winnowing. The resulting items underwent cognitive testing with people with refractive error in Australia and in Nepal. Each step was guided by an expert panel consensus.

RESULTS

We retrieved 792 items from the existing patient-reported outcome instruments. From the interviews conducted in Australia, a total of 2367 comments were coded into 807 initial items. Similarly, from the interviews conducted in Nepal, 3477 comments were coded into 914 initial items. After binning and winnowing, followed by cognitive testing, a final set of items comprising 337 items for the Item-pool (Australia) and 308 items for the Item-pool (Nepal), both spanning 12 domains, was obtained. Forty-seven percent of items were common across the two item pools. In the Item-pool (Nepal), 65% items were common for corrected and uncorrected refractive error.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified the content of two different sets of item banks to comprehensively measure the impact of refractive error on quality of life for people in Australia and Nepal, which may be applicable to high-income country settings and low- and middle-income country settings, respectively. Future work aims to develop computer-adaptive testing system to administer the item banks, resulting in useful measurement tools for researchers, clinicians, and policy planners.

Truthfulness in patient-reported outcomes: factors affecting patients' responses and impact on data quality

The use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in research and clinical care has expanded dramatically, reflective of an increasing recognition of patient-centeredness as an important aspect of high-quality health care. Given this rapid expansion, ensuring that data collected using PRO measures is of high quality is crucial for their continued successful application. Because of the subjective nature of the outcomes assessed, there are many factors that may influence patients' responses and thus challenge the overall quality of the data. In this review, we discuss the multiple factors that may affect patients' responses on PRO measures. These factors may arise during instrument development and administration or secondary to patient-level response behaviors. We further examine the relevant literature to delineate how these factors may impact data quality and review methods for accounting for these factors. Consideration of such factors is critical to ensuring data collected truthfully reflects patients' evaluations and provides accurate conclusions.

Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures

Total joint arthroplasty is performed to decreased pain, restore function and productivity and improve quality of life.One-year implant survivorship following surgery is nearly 100%; however, self-reported satisfaction is 80% after total knee arthroplasty and 90% after total hip arthroplasty.Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are produced by patients reporting on their own health status directly without interpretation from a surgeon or other medical professional; a PRO measure (PROM) is a tool, often a questionnaire, that measures different aspects of patient-related outcomes.Generic PROs are related to a patient's general health and quality of life, whereas a specific PRO is focused on a particular disease, symptom or anatomical region.While revision surgery is the traditional endpoint of registries, it is blunt and likely insufficient as a measure of success; PROMs address this shortcoming by expanding beyond survival and measuring outcomes that are relevant to patients - relief of pain, restoration of function and improvement in quality of life.PROMs are increasing in use in many national and regional orthopaedic arthroplasty registries.PROMs data can provide important information on value-based care, support quality assurance and improvement initiatives, help refine surgical indications and may improve shared decision-making and surgical timing.There are several practical considerations that need to be considered when implementing PROMs collection, as the undertaking itself may be expensive, a burden to the patient, as well as being time and labour intensive. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180080.

Evaluating cancer patient-reported outcome measures: Readability and implications for clinical use

BACKGROUND

The benefits of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are well known; however, their readability has come into question because multiple PROMs have been found to be incomprehensible to patients. This is a critical safety and equity consideration because PROMs are increasingly being integrated into routine clinical practice. A key strategy for promoting patient comprehension is the use of plain language. The aim of this study was to determine whether PROMs routinely used in the cancer setting meet plain-language best practices.

METHODS

To report the plain-language level of each PROM, readability (Fry Readability Graph, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Flesch Reading Ease, and FORCAST) and understandability assessments (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool [PEMAT] for Printable Materials) were performed. PROMs at grade level 6 or lower and with PEMAT scores greater than 80% were considered to meet plain-language best practices. PROMs were divided into 4 domains (physical, emotional, social, and quality of life) and 17 dimensions (eg, pain was a dimension of the physical domain). A subanalysis was conducted to determine whether specific domains and dimensions were more likely to adhere to plain-language best practices.

RESULTS

More than half of the 45 PROMs evaluated (n = 33 [73%]) had a grade level higher than 6. Understandability scores ranged from 29% to 100%. The majority of the PROMs that did not meet plain-language best practices were within the physical and emotional domains and focused on the patient's symptom experience.

CONCLUSIONS

This evaluation shows that more than half of the most commonly used cancer PROMs do not meet plain-language best practices. Practice implications include the necessity for plain-language assessment during the PROM validation process, the consideration of plain language in PROM selection, and plain-language review and editing of low-scoring PROMs.

Validity, Reliability, and Responsiveness of the Banff Patellar Instability Instrument (BPII) in a Adolescent Population

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality of life measures for the adolescent patellar instability population are limited. The Banff Patella Instability Instrument (BPII) is a disease-specific health-related quality of life that has been tested on a mixed adult and adolescent population but has not been exclusively tested with an adolescent population. The purpose of this study was to determine the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the BPII within an adolescent population.

METHODS

Content validation was tested with 3 measures: floor and ceiling effects; the Cronbach alpha; readability grade level. Reliability was measured with an intraclass correlation coefficient (2, k) and the SEM. Responsiveness was measured using a 1-way analysis of variance comparing preoperative BPII scores to postoperative BPII scores at 6, 12, and 24 months. Eta squared was calculated to measure effect size.

RESULTS

The BPII demonstrated no floor or ceiling effects. The Cronbach alpha for the BPII ranged from 0.97 to 0.98 for the preoperative and postoperative time periods. The readability index was a mean grade level of 8.9. Test-retest reliability assessment demonstrated an intraclass correlation coefficient (2, k) of 0.99 indicating strong reliability. The SEM was 1.3. There was a statistically significant difference in BPII scores for the 4 different time interval measures (F3, 176=50.04; P<0.001). Eta squared was 0.46 demonstrating a moderate to large effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The BPII demonstrated validity, reliability, and responsiveness in an adolescent population. Furthermore, it has demonstrated an appropriate cognitive reading grade level of 8.9, commensurate with the mean age (16.08 y) of the population tested.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Readability assessment of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons patient brochures with suggestions for improvement

Background

Many Americans have limited literacy skills, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) suggests patient educational material be written below the 8th grade level. Many orthopedic organizations provide print material for patients, but whether these documents are written at an appropriate reading level is not clear. This study assessed the readability of patient education brochures provided by the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES).

Materials and Methods

In May 2017, 6 ASES patient education brochures were analyzed using readability software. The reading level was calculated for each brochure using 9 different tests. The mean reading level for each article was compared with the NIH-recommended 8th grade level using 2-tailed, 1-sample t tests assuming unequal variances.

Results

For each of the 9 tests, the mean reading level was higher than the NIH-recommended 8th grade (test, grade level): Automated Readability Index, 14.1 (P < .05); Coleman-Liau, 14.2 (P < .05); New Dale-Chall, 13.2 (P < .05); Flesch-Kincaid, 13.7 (P < .05); FORCAST, 11.8 (P < .05); Fry, 15.8 (P < .05); Gunning Fog, 16.5 (P < .05); Raygor Estimate, 15.4 (P < .05); and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), 15.1 (P < .05).

Conclusions

The ASES patient education brochures are written well above the NIH-recommended 8th grade reading level. These findings are similar to other investigations concerning orthopedic patient education material. Supplementary brochures and websites could be a useful source of information, particularly for patients who are deterred from asking questions in the office. Printed material designed for patient education should be edited to a more reasonable reading level. Further review of patient education materials is warranted.