Article

Capturing the patient's view of change as a clinical outcome measure.

Palo Alto Medical Clinic, CA, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 282(12):1157-62.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Measurement of change in patients' health status is central to both clinical trials and clinical practice. Trials commonly use serial measurements by the patients at 2 points in time while clinicians use the patient's retrospective assessment of change made at 1 point in time. How well these measures correlate is not known.
To compare the 2 methods in measurement of changes in pain and disability.
Longitudinal survey of patients starting new therapy for chronic arthritis in 1994 and 1995. Surveys were completed at baseline (before intervention) and at 6 weeks and 4 months.
Community health education program and university medical and orthopedic services.
A total of 202 patients undertaking self-management education (n = 140), therapy with prednisone or methotrexate (n = 34), or arthroplasty of the knee or hip (n = 28).
Concordance between serial (visual analog scale for pain and Health Assessment Questionnaire for disability) and retrospective (7-point Likert scale) measures, sensitivities of these measures, and their correlation with patients' satisfaction with the change (7-point Likert scale).
When change was small (education group), serial measures correlated poorly with retrospective assessments (eg, r=0.13-0.21 at 6 weeks). With greater change, correlations improved (eg, r = 0.45-0.71 at 6 weeks). Average agreement between all pairs of assessments was 29%. Significant lack of concordance was confirmed in all 12 comparisons by McNemar tests (P = .02 to <.001) and by t tests (P = .03 to <.001). Retrospective measures were more sensitive to change than serial measures and correlated more strongly with patients' satisfaction with change.
The 2 methods for measuring health status change did not give concordant results. Including patient retrospective assessments in clinical trials might increase the comprehensiveness of information gained and its accord with clinical practice.

0 Followers
 · 
110 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in 90 subjects with chronic neck pain was conducted with the aim of determining the efficacy of 300 mW, 830 nm laser in the management of chronic neck pain. Subjects were randomized to receive a course of 14 treatments over 7 weeks with either active or sham laser to tender areas in the neck. The primary outcome measure was change in a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain. Secondary outcome measures included Short-Form 36 Quality-of-Life questionnaire (SF-36), Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPNQ), Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPAD), the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and Self-Assessed Improvement (SAI) in pain measured by VAS. Measurements were taken at baseline, at the end of 7 weeks' treatment and 12 weeks from baseline. The mean VAS pain scores improved by 2.7 in the treated group and worsened by 0.3 in the control group (difference 3.0, 95% CI 3.8-2.1). Significant improvements were seen in the active group compared to placebo for SF-36-Physical Score (SF36 PCS), NPNQ, NPAD, MPQVAS and SAI. The results of the SF-36 - Mental Score (SF36 MCS) and other MPQ component scores (afferent and sensory) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT), at the parameters used in this study, was efficacious in providing pain relief for patients with chronic neck pain over a period of 3 months.
    Pain 10/2006; 124(1-2):201-10. DOI:10.1016/j.pain.2006.05.018 · 5.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Measurement of health-related quality of life (QOL) over time often yields results that may be difficult to understand. Patients may change their internal standards of QOL as a result of adaptation to deteriorating health, a phenomenon referred to as response shift. To examine changes in internal standards of fatigue, global health/QOL, and physical function in patients with inoperable lung cancer at 3 months (n = 115) and 6 months (n = 89) after a baseline measurement close to diagnosis. Significant changes were expected to occur only in patients who reported improvement or deterioration in fatigue and global health/QOL. Fatigue, global health/QOL, and physical function were assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30, version 3.0). At follow-up, this questionnaire was administered conventionally and as a retrospective baseline assessment (thentest). Subjective transition questions were used to form mutually exclusive patient subgroups (i.e., deterioration, stable, or improvement). With respect to fatigue, significant changes occurred in patients reporting deterioration at 3 months follow-up and in patients reporting improvement after 6 months, but not in patients reporting improvement after 3 months or deterioration after 6 months. Significant changes in global health/QOL were found in patients reporting improvement at both 3 and 6 months follow-up and unexpectedly in stable patients after 3 months. No significant changes were found in patients reporting deteriorated global health/QOL at 3 and 6 months. Unexpectedly, changes occurred at both 3 and 6 months in patients reporting improved physical function. Given these mixed findings, it cannot be concluded that changes in internal standards occurred. These severely ill patients reported high levels of symptoms at baseline and may in part have adapted to their symptoms before study entry.
    Nursing Research 01/2006; 55(4):274-82. DOI:10.1097/00006199-200607000-00008 · 1.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pain is the dominant symptom of knee osteoarthritis (OA), and recent evidence suggests factors outside of local joint pathology, such as pain sensitisation, can contribute significantly to the pain experience. It is unknown how pain sensitisation influences outcomes from commonly employed interventions such as physiotherapy. The aims of this study are, first, to provide a comprehensive description of the somatosensory characteristics of people with pain associated with knee OA. Second, we will investigate if indicators of pain sensitisation in patients with knee osteoarthritis are predictive of non-response to physiotherapy. This is a multicentre prospective cohort study with 140 participants. Eligible patients with moderate to severe symptomatic knee osteoarthritis will be identified at outpatient orthopaedic and rheumatology clinics. A baseline assessment will provide a comprehensive description of the somatosensory characteristics of each participant by means of clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing, and validated questionnaires measuring pain and functional capacity. Participants will then undergo physiotherapy treatment. The primary outcome will be non-response to physiotherapy on completion of the physiotherapy treatment programme as defined by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International treatment responder criteria. A principal component analysis will identify measures related to pain sensitisation to include in the predictive model. Regression analyses will explore the relationship between responder status and pain sensitisation while accounting for confounders. This study has been approved by St James' Hospital/AMNCH Research Ethics Committee and by the St Vincent's Healthcare Group Ethics and Medical Research Committee. The results will be presented at international conferences and published in a peer review journal. NCT02310945. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
    BMJ Open 01/2015; 5(6). DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007430 · 2.06 Impact Factor