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.

Belief and recollection of autobiographical memories.

In three experiments, undergraduates rated autobiographical memories on scales derived from existing theories of memory. In multiple regression analyses, ratings of the degree to which subjects recollected (i.e., relived) their memories were predicted by visual imagery, auditory imagery, and emotions, whereas ratings of belief in the accuracy of their memories were predicted by knowledge of the setting. Recollection was predicted equally well in between- and within-subjects analyses, but belief consistently had smaller correlations and multiple regression predictions between subjects; individual differences in the cognitive scales that we measured could not account well for individual differences in belief. In contrast, measures of mood (Beck Depression Index) and dissociation (Dissociative Experience Scale) added predictive value for belief, but not for recollection. We also found that highly relived memories almost always had strong visual images and that remember/know judgments made on autobiographical memories were more closely related to belief than to recollection.