Responsiveness of three Patient Report Outcome (PRO) measures in patients with hand fractures: A preliminary cohort study

Abstract Study design Clinical measurement. Introduction Few studies describe the responsiveness of functional outcomes measures in patients sustaining hand fractures. Purpose 1 – To explore the responsiveness of three function-oriented Patient Report Outcome (PRO) measures with a cohort of hand fra...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of hand therapy 2015-10, Vol.28 (4), p.403-411
Hauptverfasser: Weinstock-Zlotnick, Gwen, PhD, OTR/L, CHT, Page, Carol, PT, DPT, CHT, Ghomrawi, Hassan M.K., PhD, MPH, Wolff, Aviva L., MA, OT, CHT
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Study design Clinical measurement. Introduction Few studies describe the responsiveness of functional outcomes measures in patients sustaining hand fractures. Purpose 1 – To explore the responsiveness of three function-oriented Patient Report Outcome (PRO) measures with a cohort of hand fracture patients. 2 – To examine patients' PRO preference. Methods 60 participants with 74 hand fractures at an outpatient hospital-based hand therapy clinic consented to participate in this study. They completed the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH), Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ), and Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) at three trials: T1 (evaluation), T2 (one month later), and T3 (two months later). Participants also identified which PRO they felt best reflected their hand use and which was easiest to complete. Descriptive statistics, analyses of variance (ANOVA), effect size, and standardized response mean (SRM) were employed to describe participants, determine functional change between trials, and examine and compare PRO responsiveness. Questionnaire preference at T1 was reported. Results Participants demonstrated functional improvement, as measured by the DASH, PRWHE, and MHQ. T1 scores: DASH = 41.85 (SD ± 22.78), MHQ = 50.13 (SD ± 18.36), and PRWHE = 48.18 (SD ± 22.07). T2 scores: DASH = 22.11 (SD ± 18.18), MHQ = 69.89 (SD ± 15.93), and PRWHE = 22.62 (SD ± 18.15). T3 scores: DASH = 17.56 (SD ± 18.01), MHQ = 75.37 (SD ± 19.19), and PRWHE = 22.40 (SD ± 19.04). Each PRO demonstrated significant test score differences between trials ( p  
ISSN:0894-1130
1545-004X
DOI:10.1016/j.jht.2015.05.004