Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Scores Are Inconsistently Correlated With Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Shoulder Pathology: A Systematic Review

A modified Delphi study to identify which items should be evaluated in shoulder instability research: a first step in developing a core outcome set

Background

The aim of this study was to identify items that healthcare providers and/or patients consider important to include in a questionnaire for clinical trials and cohort studies in shoulder instability research. This could serve as a basis to develop a core outcome set for shoulder instability research.

Methods

Healthcare providers and patients were included in a panel for a modified Delphi consensus study. The study consisted of three rounds, comprising (1) identifying items, (2) rating the importance of the items, and (3) rating the importance again after seeing a summary of the results of round two. Importance was rated on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% of the panel giving a score of 7 or higher.

Results

In total, 44 healthcare providers and 30 patients completed all three rounds. Round one identified 54 items. After round three, the panel reached a consensus on 11 items that should be included in a questionnaire, comprising re-dislocation (99%), instable feeling of the shoulder (96%), limitations during sport (93%), patient satisfaction with the shoulder (93%), fear/anxiety for re-dislocation (91%), range of motion (88%), return to old level of functioning (85%), performing daily activities (85%), return to sport (82%), return to work (82%), and trusting the shoulder (81%).

Conclusion

Healthcare providers and patients reached a consensus on 11 items that should be included in a questionnaire for shoulder instability research. These items can facilitate design and development of future clinical trials and form the basis for the development of a core outcome set.

Pre-Visit Digital Messaging Improves Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Participation Prior to the Orthopaedic Ambulatory Visit: Results from a Double-Blinded, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are metrics that assess physical health, mental health, pain, and satisfaction. However, PROM collection in orthopaedic clinics presents numerous logistical and financial challenges. These challenges are reduced when PROMs are completed before clinic encounters, relieving the workflow constraints of in-office PROM collection. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of 3 different methods with respect to pre-visit electronic PROM completion.

METHODS

Consecutive adult orthopaedic patients with no previous PROM participation were enrolled. Patients who registered with the electronic medical record (EMR) patient portal (MyChart) and with active e-mail addresses were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 arms: control (no pre-visit messages), MyChart (EMR patient portal pre-visit messages), and e-mail (e-mail pre-visit messages). The primary outcome measure was pre-visit PROM completion rates in orthopaedic patients, and the secondary outcome measures were time to pre-visit PROM form completion and PROM form completion rates according to patient demographic characteristics. By default, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) forms were available for completion through the portal by 7 days before scheduled visits. Pre-visit messages were sent 7 days prior to the scheduled visit except in the control group, with reminders sent 3 days prior if still not completed. The patients in each arm who completed all assigned forms were labeled as having total PROM completion, and those who completed at least 1 completed form were considered as having partial PROM completion. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess differences in PROM completion rates between study arms. Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed to compare the date of the form completion.

RESULTS

A total of 291 patients were included. The pre-visit total completion rates for assigned PROMs were higher in the MyChart arm (49% of 97 patients; p = 0.005) and the e-mail arm (52% of 100 patients; p = 0.002) in comparison with the control arm (30% of 94 patients). Male patients were more likely than female patients to have partial pre-visit PROM completion (odds ratio [OR], 1.74; p = 0.03), and Caucasian patients were more likely to have partial pre-visit PROM completion than African American patients (OR, 2.28; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Orthopaedic patients receiving either e-mail or patient portal messages demonstrated higher pre-visit PROM completion rates. Pre-visit messaging appears to be a useful strategy for increasing PROM completion rates and limiting the clinical workflow strain imposed by in-clinic PROM administration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Current Utilization of Patient-reported Outcome Measurement Information System in Shoulder, Elbow, and Sports Medicine

Clinical research using patient-reported outcome measures has been critical within the field of shoulder, elbow, and sports medicine in helping clinicians deliver evidence-based and value-based medicine. Recently, however, clinicians have advocated for improving the process of obtaining clinically meaningful information from patients while decreasing survey fatigue and increasing compliance. To that end, the National Institutes of Health created the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System (PROMIS) in which a number of institutions and research investigations have adopted for reporting outcomes. A special focus has also been placed on PROMIS Computer Adaptive Testing forms, which tailor questioning through item response theory. The purpose of this study was to provide insight into the utilization, advantages, and disadvantages of PROMIS within the field of shoulder, elbow, and sports medicine and provide a comparison with legacy patient-reported outcome measure measurements.

Editorial Commentary: Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Scores Vary Over Time

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores have considerable potential to both streamline the collection of outcome data and provide a common set of metrics to compare and benchmark patient-reported outcomes after orthopaedic procedures. An analysis of PROMIS scores collected at the preoperative clinical visit and the day of surgery found considerable changes in upper- and lower-extremity physical function, pain interference, and depression. These findings suggest that health status may vary between the day of operative consent and the day of surgery. Given the importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical research, quality assurance, and value-based health care, the potential for large changes in scores leading up to the procedure warrants attention toward the timing of PROMIS administration to ensure that the health status of the patient-and its variation-is accurately captured.

Editorial Commentary: Delivering the PROMIS for Patients With Shoulder Disorders-Fool's Gold, a Mirage, or an Oasis

Comparative psychometric performance of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments to legacy patient-reported outcomes for shoulder disorders is relevant and timely, as numerous stakeholders are engaged in the process of capturing, comparing, and evaluating performance results at the individual and population health levels. Depending on the stakeholder type, patient-reported outcomes could be used for clinical research, reimbursement, point-of-care, or benchmarking for patient comparison with a matched population cohort or comparative surgeon scorecard. Identifying and using the appropriate patient-reported outcome measure may be dependent on the purpose for measurement and stakeholder engagement and, as such, could be considered fool's gold, a mirage, or an oasis. At this time, PROMIS instruments are not a suitable replacement for legacy patient-reported outcomes when orthopaedic surgeons are looking to perform level I and level II clinical studies to develop future clinical practice guidelines grounded in strong evidence.