The AIMS2‐SF. A short form of the arthritis impact measurement scales 2

Guillemin, Françis; Coste, Joël; Pouchot, J.; Ghezail, M; Brégeon, C.; Sany, J

doi:10.1002/art.1780400711

Cited by 46 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These outcome measures were chosen as they form part of the core set of outcome measures in clinical trials of RA which were agreed upon by the OMERACT committee [11,21,22]. Secondary outcomes will be measured by the AIMS2-SF [23] and the Patient Knowledge Questionnaire [24].…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scores range from 1 (very uncertain) to 10 (very certain), with higher scores indicating higher self-efficacy [20]. However because in this study, function is being measured using Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2-SF (see AIMS2-SF below) described by Guillemin et al [23], only the pain and "other symptoms" subscales of the ASES will be used.…”

Section: Primary Outcome: Self Efficacymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A study evaluating the effect of Educational Needs Assessment Tool (ENAT) focused patient education, on health outcomes in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Protocol of an ongoing study

Hale

Johnson²,

Hill

et al. 2013

OJN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of a patient education tool (the ENAT) on self efficacy, patient knowledge, health outcomes and its usability in practice. Background: The effectiveness and value of patient education in rheumatoid arthritis have been questioned. The ENAT was developed to help the nurses to provide more focused, individualized and relevant education. The psychometric properties of the ENAT have been assessed. Design: This study is a single blind randomized controlled trial using both quantitative and qualitative methodology. The primary outcome is patient self efficacy. Secondary outcomes are physical function, psychological status, pain levels, social interaction and patient knowledge of disease. Methods: 130 RA patients will be randomized into an experimental (EG) or control group (CG). The EG patients will complete the ENAT prior to seeing a Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS) at weeks 0, 16 and 32. The CNS will use the ENAT as a template to meet patients perceived educational needs in addition to the usual care. The CG will receive their usual care from the CNS without the aid of the ENAT. To determine the ENAT's usability, semi-structured quailtative interviews will take place with the practitioners and a sample of patients once they have completed the quantitative arm of the study. Results: The study commenced in April 2011 and the results are expected to be available after April 2013. Conclusions: It is hypothesized that nurses' use of the ENAT will lead to increased patient self efficacy, and improved patient knowledge and health outcomes among the patients who used it. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that the ENAT will be easy for staff and patients to use. Relevance to clinical practice: The ENAT was developed to assess the perceived educational needs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and thus help the nurses to provide more focused, individualised and relevant education.

show abstract

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Primary Outcome: Self Efficacymentioning

confidence: 99%

A study evaluating the effect of Educational Needs Assessment Tool (ENAT) focused patient education, on health outcomes in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Protocol of an ongoing study

Hale

Johnson²,

Hill

et al. 2013

OJN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Twenty years later, these patient-based measures have been modified, re-scored, shortened, and, most importantly, consistently used in arthritis research and evaluation (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). This continued focus on patient outcomes has well prepared both arthritis care providers and arthritis researchers to respond to the growing health care industry demand for outcomes evaluations and for practice decisions to be based on patient results.…”

Section: Patient-centered Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes measurement in today's health care environment

Mason

1997

Arthritis & Rheumatism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Previous research on outcome measures in hand OA has either focused on the examination of the psychometric properties of a specific PROM (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22), their concurrent validity (23), or on comparisons with functional tests (24). With respect to comparability, a study has been conducted to examine the extent to which their content is comparable and revealed that most of the PROMs commonly used in hand OA capture similar aspects, in particular those associated with the Activity and Participation component of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF [25]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Standardized Reporting of Outcomes in Hand Osteoarthritis: Developing a Common Metric of Outcome Measures Commonly Used to Assess Functioning

Prodinger

Stamm

Peterson

et al. 2016

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. Functioning is an important outcome in hand osteoarthritis (OA). The heterogeneity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available challenges the direct comparability of information collected by these instruments. This study aimed to examine whether it is possible to achieve metric equivalence of PROMs commonly used to measure functioning in people with hand OA. Methods. A secondary analysis of data from 253 persons who participated in the Vienna Hand Osteoarthritis Cohort Study was conducted applying the Rasch measurement model. Participants completed the Health Assessment Questionnaire, the Australian/Canadian Index for Hand Osteoarthritis, the Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA), and the Cochin Scale. The assumptions of stochastic ordering, local independence, unidimensionality, and invariance were tested for each scale independently before the scales were co-calibrated onto a common metric. Results. Except for the FIHOA, all measures indicated issues of local dependency in the initial analyses. After accommodating those with testlets, all scales satisfied the assumptions of the Rasch model (x 2 > 0.05). Marginal misfit in 2 items was found in the FIHOA, but this did not disturb person estimates. As the 4 scales form a common metric that satisfies the assumptions of the Rasch model, the scores can be equated. Conclusion. The scores of the 4 hand function measures can be transformed to a common 0-100 metric, such that scores can be interchanged. A user-friendly transformation table enables clinicians and researchers to have access to the common metric by simply adding up the total score for each instrument and identifying the corresponding transformed score on the common metric.

show abstract

The AIMS2‐SF. A short form of the arthritis impact measurement scales 2

Abstract: The AIMS2-SF is a shorter version of the AIMS2 (i.e., available in 2-page format) and has psychometric properties similar to those of the AIMS2.

Cited by 46 publications

References 17 publications

A study evaluating the effect of Educational Needs Assessment Tool (ENAT) focused patient education, on health outcomes in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Protocol of an ongoing study

A study evaluating the effect of Educational Needs Assessment Tool (ENAT) focused patient education, on health outcomes in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Protocol of an ongoing study

Outcomes measurement in today's health care environment

Toward a Standardized Reporting of Outcomes in Hand Osteoarthritis: Developing a Common Metric of Outcome Measures Commonly Used to Assess Functioning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About