Performance of EQ-5D, howRu and Oxford hip &amp; knee scores in assessing the outcome of hip and knee replacements

Benson, Tim; Williams, Dan; Potts, Henry W W

doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1759-x

Cited by 26 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…HowRu (‘How Are You’) is a patient-rated outcome measure which has been specifically designed for use in long-term care settings to address quality of life in a way that is practical for older people [13, 14]. It records four variables (pain or discomfort, feeling low or worried, limitation in activities and dependency on others) related to QoL at a fixed point in time (‘How are you doing today?’) on a four-point scale (none, slight, quite a lot, extreme).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring health-related quality of life of care home residents: comparison of self-report with staff proxy responses

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction care home residents are often unable to complete health-related quality of life questionnaires for themselves because of prevalent cognitive impairment. This study compared care home resident and staff proxy responses for two measures, the EQ-5D-5L and HowRU. Methods a prospective cohort study recruited residents ≥60 years across 24 care homes who were not receiving short stay, respite or terminal care. Resident and staff proxy EQ-5D-5L and HowRu responses were collected monthly for 3 months. Weighted kappa statistics and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) adjusted for clustering at the care home level were used to measure agreement between resident and proxies for each time point. The effect of staff and resident baseline variables on agreement was considered using a multilevel mixed effect regression model. Results 117, 109 and 104 matched pairs completed the questionnaires at 1, 2 and 3 months, respectively. When clustering was controlled for, agreement between resident and staff proxy EQ-5D-5L responses was fair for mobility (ICC: 0.29) and slight for all other domains (ICC ≤ 0.20). EQ-5D Index and Quality-Adjusted Life Year scores (proxy scores higher than residents) showed better agreement than EQ-5D-VAS (residents scores higher than proxy). HowRU showed only slight agreement (ICC ≤ 0.20) between residents and proxies. Staff and resident characteristics did not influence level of agreement for either index. Discussion the levels of agreement for EQ-5D-5L and HowRU raise questions about their validity in this population.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring health-related quality of life of care home residents: comparison of self-report with staff proxy responses

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…QoL and functional capacity were assessed using three questionnaires: the Western Ontario McMaster Arthritis Index (WOMAC) [ 2 , 9 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 ], the Short Form-12 Health Questionnaire (SF-12) [ 18 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ], and the Euro-QoL-5D L-VAS questionnaire [ 26 , 27 ]. To evaluate psychological distress, we worked with the Psychiatry Service to develop a scoring system based on three parameters: psychiatric history, type of pathology, and number of drugs ( Table 1 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decrease of Quality of Life, Functional Assessment and Associated Psychological Distress in Patients with Hypoallergenic Total Knee Arthroplasty

Peña

Ortega

Buján

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the final treatment for knee osteoarthritis, and 15–30% of patients show little or no improvement. This high percentage is related to aspects of the surgical technique, the selected implant, and specific patient characteristics. The aim of this study was to analyze whether there are differences in quality of life (QoL) and functional capacity among patients undergoing TKA with conventional implants compared to those treated with hypoallergenic oxinium implants. A pragmatic clinical study was carried out that included patients who underwent TKA between January 2013 and December 2015. During this period, 245 knees in 228 patients were treated. Eleven patients were excluded, leaving a sample of 161 conventionally treated knees, 72 knees treated with hypoallergenic implants, and one patient who received both implant types. In all patients, QoL and functional capacity were measured with the WOMAC index, the SF-12 questionnaire, and the Euro-Qol-5D L-VAS. We also assessed the psychological distress of each patient and related the findings to the functional results. The differences in QoL were tested using ANCOVA and propensity score matching (PSM) models adjusted for sex, age, weight, psychiatric history and associated complications. Patients who underwent TKA using conventional prostheses had significantly better scores on the total WOMAC index and in the pain domain (p < 0.05) than those who received hypoallergenic prostheses, but no significant differences were observed for the other domains in the ANCOVA. In contrast, with the PSM, we also found statistically significant differences in the difficulty domain of the WOMAC. Significant differences were found for the SF-12 mental health questionnaire results (p = 0.038), but the same did not occur for the physical health domain in the ANCOVA and PSM. We also found statistically significant differences in the Euro-Qol-5D index results (p = 0.041), but not in the VAS scale scores for the same questionnaire in the ANCOVA, and we did not find significant differences in either with the PSM. Patients with metal allergies and those who present psychological distress had WOMAC, SF-12, and Euro-Qol-5D results that were statistically significantly worse than those of patients who received conventional implants. Patients who underwent hypoallergic TKA had lower scores on the QoL and functional capacity scales than patients who received conventional Cr–Co implants. Additionally, patients with psychological distress had worse results on the questionnaires, and those with a metal allergy had even lower scores; the differences were statistically significant.

show abstract

“…This was tested in a telephone survey of 2751 people living with long-term conditions, in comparison with 12-item Short Form Survey 17. It was also tested in comparison with 3-level version of EQ-5D in a hospital cardiovascular clinic,18 and in hip and knee replacement surgery 19…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measure what we want: a taxonomy of short generic person-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs)

Benson¹

2020

BMJ Open Qual

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionHealth and care systems are complex and multifaceted, but most person-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) address just one aspect. Multiple aspects need measuring to understand how what we do impacts patients, staff and services, and how these are affected by external factors. This needs survey tools that measure what people want, are valid, sensitive, quick and easy to use, and suitable for people with multiple conditions.MethodsWe have developed a coherent family of short generic PROMs and PREMs that can be used in combination in a pick-and-mix way. Each measure has evolved iteratively over several years, based on literature review, user inputs and field testing. Each has has a common format with four items with four response options and is designed for digital data collection with standardised analytics and data visualisation tools. We focused on brevity and low reading age.ResultsThe results are presented in tabular format and as a taxonomy. The taxonomy is categorised by respondent type (patient or staff) and measure type. PROMs have subdomains: quality of life, individual care and community; PREMs have subdomains: service provided, provider culture and innovation. We show 22 patient-reported measures and 17 staff-reported measures. Previously published measures have been validated. Others are described for the first time.Discussion and conclusionsThis family of measures is broad in scope but is not claimed to be comprehensive. Measures share a common look and feel, which enables common methods of data collection, reporting and data visualisation. They are used in service evaluation, quality improvement and as key performance indicators. The taxonomy helps to organise the whole, explain what each measure does and identify gaps and overlaps.

show abstract

Performance of EQ-5D, howRu and Oxford hip & knee scores in assessing the outcome of hip and knee replacements

Cited by 26 publications

References 24 publications

Measuring health-related quality of life of care home residents: comparison of self-report with staff proxy responses

Measuring health-related quality of life of care home residents: comparison of self-report with staff proxy responses

Decrease of Quality of Life, Functional Assessment and Associated Psychological Distress in Patients with Hypoallergenic Total Knee Arthroplasty

Measure what we want: a taxonomy of short generic person-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About