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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of hand therapy 2015-10, Vol.28 (4), p.403-411 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 411 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 403 |
| container_title | Journal of hand therapy |
| container_volume | 28 |
| creator | Weinstock-Zlotnick, Gwen, PhD, OTR/L, CHT Page, Carol, PT, DPT, CHT Ghomrawi, Hassan M.K., PhD, MPH Wolff, Aviva L., MA, OT, CHT |
| description | 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 |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jht.2015.05.004 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1729349544</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0894113015000964</els_id><sourcerecordid>3853620381</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-4fe3b8b94539cc18fd7f7bf1fecb10fbbbb7642f36527f62d3dcd6c99f2309503</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kl2L1TAQhoMo7nH1B3gjAW_Wix7z1fREQVgWv2DhLEcF70KbTmhq29QkXTn_3pSzKuyFYSCBPPMyM-8g9JySLSVUvu63fZe2jNByS3IQ8QBtaCnKIj-_P0QbslOioJSTM_Qkxp5kkJHqMTpjkhFFJdug4wHi7KfobmGCGLG3OHUBAN_UycGU8AFmHxLeL8n4EfDFzWH_Co9QxyVAxG7C8wmM-JdLHe7qqcU21Cat_2_wJZ4DDG50Ux2O2PhuFYtpaY9P0SNbDxGe3d3n6NuH91-vPhXX-4-fry6vCyO4TIWwwJtdo0TJlTF0Z9vKVo2lFkxDiW3yqaRglsuSVVaylremlUYpyzhRJeHn6OKkOwf_c4GY9OiigWGoJ_BL1LRiigtVCpHRl_fQ3i9hytWt1E4yQTnPFD1RJvgYA1g9Bzfm9jQlevVF9zr7oldfNMlBVuUXd8pLM0L7N-OPERl4ewIgj-LWQdDR5LEaaF0Ak3Tr3X_l393LNoObnKmHH3CE-K8LHZkm-su6GOte0JIQoqTgvwFS-rPS</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1728624133</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Responsiveness of three Patient Report Outcome (PRO) measures in patients with hand fractures: A preliminary cohort study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Weinstock-Zlotnick, Gwen, PhD, OTR/L, CHT ; Page, Carol, PT, DPT, CHT ; Ghomrawi, Hassan M.K., PhD, MPH ; Wolff, Aviva L., MA, OT, CHT</creator><creatorcontrib>Weinstock-Zlotnick, Gwen, PhD, OTR/L, CHT ; Page, Carol, PT, DPT, CHT ; Ghomrawi, Hassan M.K., PhD, MPH ; Wolff, Aviva L., MA, OT, CHT</creatorcontrib><description>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 < .001). Large responsiveness (≥.80) was noted between T1 and T2: (effect size: .98–1.23; SRM: 1.31–1.49) and T1 and T3 (effect size: 1.21–1.54; SRM 1.49–1.84). Smaller responsiveness effects were noted between T2 and T3 (effect size: .35–.64, SRM: .38–.81). No significant differences between questionnaire responsiveness were found. Patients reported PRWHE easiest to complete and MHQ best reflecting their hand use. Conclusions DASH, MHQ, and PRWHE were each able to describe functional limitations in this cohort of patients with hand fractures. In capturing improvement over time they demonstrated comparable responsiveness in assessing change in patients with hand fractures. Level of evidence 2c.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0894-1130</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1545-004X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jht.2015.05.004</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26209162</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Arthritis ; Cohort Studies ; DASH ; Disability Evaluation ; Ergonomics ; Female ; Fractures, Bone - physiopathology ; Fractures, Bone - therapy ; Hand fracture ; Hand Injuries - physiopathology ; Hand Injuries - therapy ; Humans ; Injuries ; Joint surgery ; Male ; MHQ ; Middle Aged ; Pain ; Patient Preference ; Patient Report Outcome measure (PRO) ; Patients ; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ; Preferences ; PRWHE ; Questionnaires ; Range of Motion, Articular - physiology ; Responsiveness ; Studies ; Surgery ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Validity ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of hand therapy, 2015-10, Vol.28 (4), p.403-411</ispartof><rights>Hanley & Belfus</rights><rights>2015 Hanley & Belfus</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Hanley & Belfus. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Oct-Dec 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-4fe3b8b94539cc18fd7f7bf1fecb10fbbbb7642f36527f62d3dcd6c99f2309503</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-4fe3b8b94539cc18fd7f7bf1fecb10fbbbb7642f36527f62d3dcd6c99f2309503</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1728624133?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,3551,27929,27930,46000,64390,64392,64394,72474</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26209162$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Weinstock-Zlotnick, Gwen, PhD, OTR/L, CHT</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Page, Carol, PT, DPT, CHT</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghomrawi, Hassan M.K., PhD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolff, Aviva L., MA, OT, CHT</creatorcontrib><title>Responsiveness of three Patient Report Outcome (PRO) measures in patients with hand fractures: A preliminary cohort study</title><title>Journal of hand therapy</title><addtitle>J Hand Ther</addtitle><description>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 < .001). Large responsiveness (≥.80) was noted between T1 and T2: (effect size: .98–1.23; SRM: 1.31–1.49) and T1 and T3 (effect size: 1.21–1.54; SRM 1.49–1.84). Smaller responsiveness effects were noted between T2 and T3 (effect size: .35–.64, SRM: .38–.81). No significant differences between questionnaire responsiveness were found. Patients reported PRWHE easiest to complete and MHQ best reflecting their hand use. Conclusions DASH, MHQ, and PRWHE were each able to describe functional limitations in this cohort of patients with hand fractures. In capturing improvement over time they demonstrated comparable responsiveness in assessing change in patients with hand fractures. Level of evidence 2c.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Arthritis</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>DASH</subject><subject>Disability Evaluation</subject><subject>Ergonomics</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fractures, Bone - physiopathology</subject><subject>Fractures, Bone - therapy</subject><subject>Hand fracture</subject><subject>Hand Injuries - physiopathology</subject><subject>Hand Injuries - therapy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Injuries</subject><subject>Joint surgery</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>MHQ</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Patient Preference</subject><subject>Patient Report Outcome measure (PRO)</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>PRWHE</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</subject><subject>Responsiveness</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Validity</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0894-1130</issn><issn>1545-004X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kl2L1TAQhoMo7nH1B3gjAW_Wix7z1fREQVgWv2DhLEcF70KbTmhq29QkXTn_3pSzKuyFYSCBPPMyM-8g9JySLSVUvu63fZe2jNByS3IQ8QBtaCnKIj-_P0QbslOioJSTM_Qkxp5kkJHqMTpjkhFFJdug4wHi7KfobmGCGLG3OHUBAN_UycGU8AFmHxLeL8n4EfDFzWH_Co9QxyVAxG7C8wmM-JdLHe7qqcU21Cat_2_wJZ4DDG50Ux2O2PhuFYtpaY9P0SNbDxGe3d3n6NuH91-vPhXX-4-fry6vCyO4TIWwwJtdo0TJlTF0Z9vKVo2lFkxDiW3yqaRglsuSVVaylremlUYpyzhRJeHn6OKkOwf_c4GY9OiigWGoJ_BL1LRiigtVCpHRl_fQ3i9hytWt1E4yQTnPFD1RJvgYA1g9Bzfm9jQlevVF9zr7oldfNMlBVuUXd8pLM0L7N-OPERl4ewIgj-LWQdDR5LEaaF0Ak3Tr3X_l393LNoObnKmHH3CE-K8LHZkm-su6GOte0JIQoqTgvwFS-rPS</recordid><startdate>20151001</startdate><enddate>20151001</enddate><creator>Weinstock-Zlotnick, Gwen, PhD, OTR/L, CHT</creator><creator>Page, Carol, PT, DPT, CHT</creator><creator>Ghomrawi, Hassan M.K., PhD, MPH</creator><creator>Wolff, Aviva L., MA, OT, CHT</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151001</creationdate><title>Responsiveness of three Patient Report Outcome (PRO) measures in patients with hand fractures: A preliminary cohort study</title><author>Weinstock-Zlotnick, Gwen, PhD, OTR/L, CHT ; Page, Carol, PT, DPT, CHT ; Ghomrawi, Hassan M.K., PhD, MPH ; Wolff, Aviva L., MA, OT, CHT</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-4fe3b8b94539cc18fd7f7bf1fecb10fbbbb7642f36527f62d3dcd6c99f2309503</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Arthritis</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>DASH</topic><topic>Disability Evaluation</topic><topic>Ergonomics</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fractures, Bone - physiopathology</topic><topic>Fractures, Bone - therapy</topic><topic>Hand fracture</topic><topic>Hand Injuries - physiopathology</topic><topic>Hand Injuries - therapy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Injuries</topic><topic>Joint surgery</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>MHQ</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Patient Preference</topic><topic>Patient Report Outcome measure (PRO)</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>PRWHE</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</topic><topic>Responsiveness</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Validity</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Weinstock-Zlotnick, Gwen, PhD, OTR/L, CHT</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Page, Carol, PT, DPT, CHT</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghomrawi, Hassan M.K., PhD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolff, Aviva L., MA, OT, CHT</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of hand therapy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Weinstock-Zlotnick, Gwen, PhD, OTR/L, CHT</au><au>Page, Carol, PT, DPT, CHT</au><au>Ghomrawi, Hassan M.K., PhD, MPH</au><au>Wolff, Aviva L., MA, OT, CHT</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Responsiveness of three Patient Report Outcome (PRO) measures in patients with hand fractures: A preliminary cohort study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of hand therapy</jtitle><addtitle>J Hand Ther</addtitle><date>2015-10-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>403</spage><epage>411</epage><pages>403-411</pages><issn>0894-1130</issn><eissn>1545-004X</eissn><abstract>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 < .001). Large responsiveness (≥.80) was noted between T1 and T2: (effect size: .98–1.23; SRM: 1.31–1.49) and T1 and T3 (effect size: 1.21–1.54; SRM 1.49–1.84). Smaller responsiveness effects were noted between T2 and T3 (effect size: .35–.64, SRM: .38–.81). No significant differences between questionnaire responsiveness were found. Patients reported PRWHE easiest to complete and MHQ best reflecting their hand use. Conclusions DASH, MHQ, and PRWHE were each able to describe functional limitations in this cohort of patients with hand fractures. In capturing improvement over time they demonstrated comparable responsiveness in assessing change in patients with hand fractures. Level of evidence 2c.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>26209162</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jht.2015.05.004</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0894-1130 |
| ispartof | Journal of hand therapy, 2015-10, Vol.28 (4), p.403-411 |
| issn | 0894-1130 1545-004X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1729349544 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
| subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Arthritis Cohort Studies DASH Disability Evaluation Ergonomics Female Fractures, Bone - physiopathology Fractures, Bone - therapy Hand fracture Hand Injuries - physiopathology Hand Injuries - therapy Humans Injuries Joint surgery Male MHQ Middle Aged Pain Patient Preference Patient Report Outcome measure (PRO) Patients Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Preferences PRWHE Questionnaires Range of Motion, Articular - physiology Responsiveness Studies Surgery Surveys and Questionnaires Validity Young Adult |
| title | Responsiveness of three Patient Report Outcome (PRO) measures in patients with hand fractures: A preliminary cohort study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-12T04%3A36%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Responsiveness%20of%20three%20Patient%20Report%20Outcome%20(PRO)%20measures%20in%20patients%20with%20hand%20fractures:%20A%20preliminary%20cohort%20study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20hand%20therapy&rft.au=Weinstock-Zlotnick,%20Gwen,%20PhD,%20OTR/L,%20CHT&rft.date=2015-10-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=403&rft.epage=411&rft.pages=403-411&rft.issn=0894-1130&rft.eissn=1545-004X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jht.2015.05.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3853620381%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1728624133&rft_id=info:pmid/26209162&rft_els_id=S0894113015000964&rfr_iscdi=true |