Abstract
Patient experience, satisfaction, and outcomes are essential to improving overall quality in spinal care. Out of all outcomes, restoration of function and productivity and reduction in pain are of the upmost importance. It is necessary to assess patients with validated outcome measurement tools in order to capture this feedback. There are three key factors that are essential for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures; reliability, validity, and responsiveness. There are statistical methods that assess whether or not each PRO possesses these characteristics.
PROs can either be disease-specific such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or capture general health-related quality of life, such as SF-36 or SF-12. There are benefits and limitations of each PRO, and it is important to understand what domain is intended to be measured in order to compare treatment options in spinal care. Anxiety and depression affect PRO results, but there are some robust outcome measurement systems, such as Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) that enable researchers and physicians to understand how these comorbidities may affect patients’ overall outcomes. PROMIS® measures are less burdensome for patients to complete, utilize computer-adaptive testing (CAT), and are built from several health domains which makes for relevant assessment of any condition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Deyo RA, Andersson G, Bombardier C, et al. Outcome measures for studying patients with low back pain. Spine. 1994;19:2032S–6S.
Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12:142S–58S.
Kopec JA, Esdaile JM. Functional disability scales for back pain. Spine. 1995;20:1943–9.
Hadley MN, Walters BC, Grabb PA, et al. Guidelines for the management of acute cervical spine and spinal cord injuries. Clin Neurosurg. 2002;49:407–98.
Karanicolas PJ, Bhandari M, Kreder H, et al. Evaluating agreement: conducting a reliability study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(Suppl 3):99–106.
Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 1955;52:281–302.
Cronbach LJ. Test reliability; its meaning and determination. Psychometrika. 1947;12:1–16.
Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66:271–3.
Guilfoyle MR, Seeley H, Laing RJ. The short form 36 health survey in spine disease – validation against condition-specific measures. Br J Neurosurg. 2009;23:401–5.
Ghogawala Z, Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: assessment of functional outcome following lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21:7–13.
Bridwell KH, Berven S, Glassman S, et al. Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery? Spine. 2007;32:2220–5.
Ghogawala Z, Resnick DK, Glassman SD, Dziura J, Shaffrey CI, Mummaneni PV. Randomized controlled trials for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: which patients benefit from lumbar fusion? J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26:260–6.
Forsth P, Olafsson G, Carlsson T, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1413–23.
Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler WE, et al. Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1424–34.
Lee CE, Browell LM, Jones DL. Measuring health in patients with cervical and lumbosacral spinal disorders: is the 12-item short-form health survey a valid alternative for the 36-item short-form health survey? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:829–33.
Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry disability index, medical outcomes study questionnaire short form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 2008;8:968–74.
Ghogawala Z, Resnick DK, Glassman SD, Dziura J, Shaffrey CI, Mummaneni PV. Achieving optimal outcome for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: randomized controlled trial results. Neurosurgery. 2017;64:40–4.
Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337–43.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.
Boody BS, Bhatt S, Mazmudar AS, Hsu WK, Rothrock NE, Patel AA. Validation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computerized adaptive tests in cervical spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28:268–79.
Sharma M, Ugiliweneza B, Beswick J, Boakye M. Concurrent validity and comparative responsiveness of PROMIS – SF versus legacy measures in the cervical and lumbar spine population: longitudinal analysis from baseline to post surgery. World Neurosurg. 2018;115:e664.
Merrill RK, Zebala LP, Peters C, Qureshi SA, McAnany SJ. Impact of depression on patient-reported outcome measures after lumbar spine decompression. Spine. 2018;43:434–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dunbar, M.R., Ghogawala, Z. (2019). Patient-Reported Outcomes. In: Ratliff, J., Albert, T., Cheng, J., Knightly, J. (eds) Quality Spine Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97990-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97990-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97989-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97990-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)