Validation and Implementation of 4-domain Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Tailored for Orthopedic Sports Medicine

Abstract

The validation of a 4-domain PROM tailored to orthopedic sports medicine was performed through item generation, item scaling, validity and reliability testing, statistical analysis, as well as item reduction. Conbrach's alpha was used to verify item homogeneity, i. e. their accuracy or consistency. This PROM showed acceptable statistical accuracy and clinical applicability for a variety of surgical treatments, regardless of the anatomical injury sites. Moreover, this PROM considers the athletes’ primary physical demands in an non-injured baseline condition, their motivation to continue sports practice and participation, and the influence of sports practice on their quality of life. This 4-domain PROM tailored for orthopedic sports medicine appears to be a valid tool to assess athletes and high-performing practitioners with sports injuries, recording their perception of injury, expectations of treatment; evaluation of postoperative care and treatment received, and perceived outcomes compared to their pre-injury status of physical demands in sports activity. The tool is unique, allowing direct comparisons between athletes’ perception of pre-injury baseline, injury, treatment, and outcome. It will be a welcome adjunct to the sports medicine professional’s tool box when assessing athlete’s status and outcome after injury and intervention.

Key words

outcome studies - sports medicine

Publication History

Received: 24 June 2020

Accepted: 19 November 2020

Article published online:
13 January 2021

• References

• 1 Ruzbarsky JJ, Marom N, Marx RG. Measuring quality and outcomes in sports medicine. Clin Sports Med 2018; 37: 463-482 doi:10.1016/j.csm.2018.03.001
• 2 Kyte DG, Calvert M, van der Wees PJ. et al. An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy 2015; 101: 119-125 doi:10.1016/j.physio.2014.11.003
• 3 Dawson J, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R. et al. The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ 2010; 340: c186 doi:10.1136/bmj.c186
• 4 Higginson IJ, Carr AJ. Measuring quality of life: Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BMJ 2001; 322: 1297-1300 doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7297.1297
• 5 Valier AR, Jennings AL, Parsons JT. et al. Benefits of and barriers to using patient-rated outcome measures in athletic training. J Athl Train 2014; 49: 674-683 doi:10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.15
• 6 Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ 2013; 346: f167 doi:10.1136/bmj.f167
• 7 Snyder AR, Valovich McLeod TC, Sauers EL. Defining, valuing, and teaching clinical outcomes assessment in professional and post-professional athletic training education programs. Athl Train Educ J 2007; 2: 31-41 doi:10.4085/1947-380x-2.2.31
• 8 Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M. et al. The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: A systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res 2008; 17: 179-193 doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0
• 9 Hutchings HA, Alrubaiy L. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Routine Clinical Care: The PROMise of a Better Future?. Dig Dis Sci 2017; 1841-1843 doi:10.1007/s10620-017-4658-z
• 10 Hefti F, Muller W, Jakob RP. et al. Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1993; 1: 226-234 doi:10.1007/bf01560215
• 11 Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL. et al. Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29: 600-613 doi:10.1177/03635465010290051301
• 12 Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 1996; 29: 602-608 doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::aid-ajim4>3.0.co;2-l
• 13 Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int 2001; 22: 788-794 doi:10.1177/107110070102201004
• 14 EuroQol Group. EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199-208
• 15 Swanenburg J, Koch PP, Meier N. et al. Function and activity in patients with knee arthroplasty: validity and reliability of a German version of the Lysholm Score and the Tegner Activity Scale. Swiss Med Wkly 2014; 144: w13976 doi:10.4414/smw.2014.13976
• 16 Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 17 doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-17
• 17 Rocha Piedade S, Hutchinson MR, Maffulli N. Presently PROMs are not tailored for athletes and high-performance sports practitioners: a systematic review. Journal of ISAKOS: Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine 2019; 4: 248-253 doi:10.1136/jisakos-2019-000286
• 18 Harriss DJ, MacSween A, Atkinson G. Ethical Standards in Sport and Exercise Science Research: 2020 Update. Int J Sports Med 2019; 40: 813-817 doi:10.1055/a-1015-3123
• 19 Robinson JM, Cook JL, Purdam C. et al. The VISA-A questionnaire: a valid and reliable index of the clinical severity of Achilles tendinopathy. Br J Sports Med 2001; 35: 335-341 doi:10.1136/bjsm.35.5.335
• 20 Philpot LM, Barnes SA, Brown RM. et al. Barriers and benefits to the use of patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical care: A qualitative study. Am J Med Qual 2018; 33: 359-364 doi:10.1177/1062860617745986
• 21 Greenhalgh J. The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why?. Qual Life Res 2009; 18: 115-123 doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9430-6