Patient-based outcome assessment instruments in acupuncture research.

BACKGROUND: Outcome assessment can support the therapeutic process by providing a way to track symptoms and functionality over time, providing insights to clinicians and patients, as well as offering a common language to discuss patient behavior/functioning. OBJECTIVES: In this article, we examine the patient-based outcome assessment (PBOA) instruments that have been used to determine outcomes in acupuncture clinical research and highlight measures that are feasible, practical, economical, reliable, valid, and responsive to clinical change. The aims of this review were to assess and identify the commonly available PBOA measures, describe a framework for identifying appropriate sets of measures, and address the challenges associated with these measures and acupuncture. Instruments were evaluated in terms of feasibility, practicality, economy, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to clinical change. METHODS: This study was a systematic review. A total of 582 abstracts were reviewed using PubMed (from inception through April 2009). RESULTS: A total of 582 citations were identified. After screening of title/abstract, 212 articles were excluded. From the remaining 370 citations, 258 manuscripts identified explicit PBOA; 112 abstracts did not include any PBOA. The five most common PBOA instruments identified were the Visual Analog Scale, Symptom Diary, Numerical Pain Rating Scales, SF-36, and depression scales such as the Beck Depression Inventory. CONCLUSIONS: The way a questionnaire or scale is administered can have an effect on the outcome. Also, developing and validating outcome measures can be costly and difficult. Therefore, reviewing the literature on existing measures before creating or modifying PBOA instruments can significantly reduce the burden of developing a new measure.

Outcomes After Total Ankle Replacement in Association With Ipsilateral Hindfoot Arthrodesis.

BACKGROUND: Ipsilateral hindfoot arthrodesis in combination with total ankle replacement (TAR) may diminish functional outcome and prosthesis survivorship compared to isolated TAR. We compared the outcome of isolated TAR to outcomes of TAR with ipsilateral hindfoot arthrodesis. METHODS: In a consecutive series of 404 primary TARs in 396 patients, 70 patients (17.3%) had a hindfoot fusion before, after, or at the time of TAR; the majority had either an isolated subtalar arthrodesis (n = 43, 62%) or triple arthrodesis (n = 15, 21%). The remaining 334 isolated TARs served as the control group. Mean patient follow-up was 3.2 years (range, 24-72 months). RESULTS: The SF-36 total, AOFAS Hindfoot-Ankle pain subscale, Foot and Ankle Disability Index, and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment scores were significantly improved from preoperative measures, with no significant differences between the hindfoot arthrodesis and control groups. The AOFAS Hindfoot-Ankle total, function, and alignment scores were significantly improved for both groups, albeit the control group demonstrated significantly higher scores in all 3 scales. Furthermore, the control group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in VAS pain score compared to the hindfoot arthrodesis group. Walking speed, sit-to-stand time, and 4-square step test time were significantly improved for both groups at each postoperative time point; however, the hindfoot arthrodesis group completed these tests significantly slower than the control group. There was no significant difference in terms of talar component subsidence between the fusion (2.6 mm) and control groups (2.0 mm). The failure rate in the hindfoot fusion group (10.0%) was significantly higher than that in the control group (2.4%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study represents the first series evaluating the clinical outcome of TARs performed with and without hindfoot fusion using implants available in the United States. At follow-up of 3.2 years, TAR performed with ipsilateral hindfoot arthrodesis resulted in significant improvements in pain and functional outcome; in contrast to prior studies, however, overall outcome was inferior to that of isolated TAR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative series.

A new instrument for measuring anticoagulation-related quality of life: development and preliminary validation.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation can reduce quality of life, and different models of anticoagulation management might have different impacts on satisfaction with this component of medical care. Yet, to our knowledge, there are no scales measuring quality of life and satisfaction with anticoagulation that can be generalized across different models of anticoagulation management. We describe the development and preliminary validation of such an instrument - the Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Scale (DASS). METHODS: The DASS is a 25-item scale addressing the (a) negative impacts of anticoagulation (limitations, hassles and burdens); and (b) positive impacts of anticoagulation (confidence, reassurance, satisfaction). Each item has 7 possible responses. The DASS was administered to 262 patients currently receiving oral anticoagulation. Scales measuring generic quality of life, satisfaction with medical care, and tendency to provide socially desirable responses were also administered. Statistical analysis included assessment of item variability, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), scale structure (factor analysis), and correlations between the DASS and demographic variables, clinical characteristics, and scores on the above scales. A follow-up study of 105 additional patients assessed test-retest reliability. RESULTS: 220 subjects answered all items. Ceiling and floor effects were modest, and 25 of the 27 proposed items grouped into 2 factors (positive impacts, negative impacts, this latter factor being potentially subdivided into limitations versus hassles and burdens). Each factor had a high degree of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.78-0.91). The limitations and hassles factors consistently correlated with the SF-36 scales measuring generic quality of life, while the positive psychological impact scale correlated with age and time on anticoagulation. The intra-class correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability was 0.80. CONCLUSIONS: The DASS has demonstrated reasonable psychometric properties to date. Further validation is ongoing. To the degree that dissatisfaction with anticoagulation leads to decreased adherence, poorer INR control, and poor clinical outcomes, the DASS has the potential to help identify reasons for dissatisfaction (and positive satisfaction), and thus help to develop interventions to break this cycle. As an instrument designed to be applicable across multiple models of anticoagulation management, the DASS could be crucial in the scientific comparison between those models of care.