Measurement properties for the revised patient-reported OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire

Abstract

The OA-QI v2 had higher reliability estimates compared to v1, showed acceptable validity, and is the recommended version for future use. The results of responsiveness testing further support the use of the OA-QI v2 as an outcome measure in studies aiming to improve osteoarthritis care.

Patient-reported quality indicators to evaluate physiotherapy care for hip and/or knee osteoarthritis- development and evaluation of the QUIPA tool

“…In terms of validity, the QUIPA tool has acceptable construct validity with all three pre-defined hypotheses confirmed (P < 0.05). These hypotheses were similar to those used for assessment of construct validity in other QI tools for OA care [21,30], although the sample size in our subgroups was smaller. While construct validity was supported, our data indicate that the tool does not have acceptable criterion validity as assessed via comparison of participants' responses at W1 to responses provided by the physiotherapists.…”

“…Overall, despite generally low Kappa values for single items of the QUIPA tool, the test-retest Kappa estimates and observed agreement were comparable [21] or only slightly lower [30] than previous patient-reported QI tools for OA care which have been rolled out and now used in practice. However, it must be noted that these studies used a recall time frame of 2 weeks for evaluating test-retest reliability despite the tools having a maximum recall period of 3 months [21,30]. It is therefore not known whether the reliability estimates they reported would have been lower if they had used a threemonth recall as we did.…”

“…Where the recommendations overlapped with those in the UK-QI questionnaire [22], we utilised similar phrasing as the UK-QI questionnaire because it had been through a rigorous development process, involved patient participation and was based on the most recent QIs, both from the Norwegian patient-reported QI questionnaire [21] and the systematic review in 2013 [13]. Although the Norwegian team has since revised and validated their QI questionnaire [30], it contains similar QIs to that of the previous version. The first draft of the QUIPA tool is attached in Additional file 1.…”

Patient-reported quality indicators to evaluate physiotherapy care for hip and/or knee osteoarthritis- development and evaluation of the QUIPA tool.

“…Overall, despite generally low Kappa values for single items of the QUIPA tool, the test-retest Kappa estimates and observed agreement were comparable [21] or only slightly lower [30] than previous patient-reported QI tools for OA care which have been rolled out and now used in practice. However, it must be noted that these studies used a recall time frame of two weeks for evaluating test-retest reliability despite the tools having a maximum recall period of three months [21,30]. It is therefore not known whether the reliability estimates they reported would have been lower if they had used a three-month recall as we did.…”

“…Where the recommendations overlapped with those in the UK-QI questionnaire [22], we utilised similar phrasing as the UK-QI questionnaire because it had been through a rigorous development process, involved patient participation and was based on the most recent QIs, both from the Norwegian patientreported QI questionnaire [21] and the systematic review in 2013 [13]. Although the Norwegian team has since revised and validated their QI questionnaire [30], it contains similar QIs to that of the previous version. The first draft of the QUIPA tool is attached in Additional file 1.…”