TY - JOUR
T1 - Large variation in use of patient-reported outcome measures: A survey of 188 foot and ankle surgeons
AU - Ankle Platform Study Collaborative – Science of Variation Group
AU - Zwiers, R.
AU - Weel, H.
AU - Mallee, W. H.
AU - Kerkhoffs, G. M. M. J.
AU - van Dijk, C. N.
AU - Ramos, Acacio J. C.
AU - Ajis, Adam
AU - Toom, Alar
AU - Ortolani, Alessandro
AU - Russo, Alessandro
AU - Abdelwahab, Ali
AU - Yazdani, Alireza
AU - Mora, Allan David
AU - Burg, Alon
AU - Colino, Alvaro
AU - Iouail, Ameur
AU - Gaspar, Ana Rita
AU - de Souza, André Luiz Rocha
AU - Engvall, Andreas
AU - Hsu, Andrew R.
AU - Primadhi, Andri
AU - Millán, Angélica
AU - Peters, Anil
AU - Amin, Anish
AU - Hoffmann, Antonin
AU - Moreira, António José Correia
AU - Marmotti, Antonio
AU - Bertz, Ari
AU - Barmare, Arshad
AU - Eltabbaa, Ayman
AU - Rudge, Ben
AU - Schmidt, Ben
AU - Nery, Caio
AU - Cortes, Carlos Roberto
AU - Lins, Carolina
AU - Banuelos, Cesar Andarcia
AU - Kord, Chegini
AU - van Bergen, Christiaan J. A.
AU - Stukenborg-Colsman, Christina
AU - Lu, Christopher
AU - Marquis, Christopher
AU - Baumfeld, Daniel
AU - Haverkamp, Daniel
AU - Mendes, Daniel
AU - Townshend, Dave
AU - Kim, David
AU - Park, Derek H.
AU - Mahadevan, Devendra
AU - Verbeek, Diederik O.
AU - Hatziemmanuil, Dimitrios
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - Background: There is an increasing interest in the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, there is a large variety of PROMs and a lack of consensus regarding preference for their use. Aim of this study is to determine how often PROMS are used for foot and ankle disorders, for what purpose PROMs are used, and what the preferences of the foot and ankle surgeons are, when choosing a PROM to use. Methods: Members of the Ankleplatform Study Group—Science of Variation Collaborative were invited to participate in this survey by email. The online survey consisted of six questions on the use and preferences regarding foot and ankle PROMs. Results: 188 participants completed the questionnaire. Of the respondents 17% reported not to use PROMs, 72% stated to use PROMS for research, 39% routinely for patient care and 34% for registration or quality assessment. The respondents were familiar with 30 different outcome measures, of which 20 were PROMs. One of the excluded outcome measures, the AOFAS Hindfoot scale was most commonly reported as preferred outcome measure. FAOS and MOXFQ were the preferred PROMs, reported by 9.7% of the surgeons. Subsequently followed by the FFI (4.3%), the FAAM (3.7%) and the VAS-FA (3.7%). Conclusions: A large majority of the foot and ankle surgeons uses PROMs. The AOFAS hindfoot scale is mentioned as the most preferred outcome measure, while in fact this is not a PROM. Of the twenty different PROMs mentioned in this study, most reported were the FAOS and MOXFQ both supported by only 9.7% of the surgeons. For proper comparison between patients in clinical practice and research, consensus is needed on which easy-to-use PROM with adequate clinimetric properties should be used. Therefore more evidence in the field of clinimetrics of foot and ankle outcome measures is needed.
AB - Background: There is an increasing interest in the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, there is a large variety of PROMs and a lack of consensus regarding preference for their use. Aim of this study is to determine how often PROMS are used for foot and ankle disorders, for what purpose PROMs are used, and what the preferences of the foot and ankle surgeons are, when choosing a PROM to use. Methods: Members of the Ankleplatform Study Group—Science of Variation Collaborative were invited to participate in this survey by email. The online survey consisted of six questions on the use and preferences regarding foot and ankle PROMs. Results: 188 participants completed the questionnaire. Of the respondents 17% reported not to use PROMs, 72% stated to use PROMS for research, 39% routinely for patient care and 34% for registration or quality assessment. The respondents were familiar with 30 different outcome measures, of which 20 were PROMs. One of the excluded outcome measures, the AOFAS Hindfoot scale was most commonly reported as preferred outcome measure. FAOS and MOXFQ were the preferred PROMs, reported by 9.7% of the surgeons. Subsequently followed by the FFI (4.3%), the FAAM (3.7%) and the VAS-FA (3.7%). Conclusions: A large majority of the foot and ankle surgeons uses PROMs. The AOFAS hindfoot scale is mentioned as the most preferred outcome measure, while in fact this is not a PROM. Of the twenty different PROMs mentioned in this study, most reported were the FAOS and MOXFQ both supported by only 9.7% of the surgeons. For proper comparison between patients in clinical practice and research, consensus is needed on which easy-to-use PROM with adequate clinimetric properties should be used. Therefore more evidence in the field of clinimetrics of foot and ankle outcome measures is needed.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85017104757&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29409251
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2017.02.013
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2017.02.013
M3 - Article
C2 - 29409251
SN - 1268-7731
VL - 24
SP - 246
EP - 251
JO - Foot and Ankle Surgery
JF - Foot and Ankle Surgery
IS - 3
ER -