Responsiveness of three Patient Report Outcome (PRO) measures in patients with hand fractures: A preliminary cohort study.

STUDY

DESIGN

Clinical measurement.

INTRODUCTION

Few studies describe the responsiveness of functional outcomes measures in patients sustaining hand fractures.

PURPOSE: 1--To explore the responsiveness of three function-oriented Patient Report Outcome (PRO) measures with a cohort of hand fracture patients. 2--To examine patients' PRO preference.

METHODS

60 participants with 74 hand fractures at an outpatient hospital-based hand therapy clinic consented to participate in this study. They completed the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH), Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ), and Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) at three trials: T1 (evaluation), T2 (one month later), and T3 (two months later). Participants also identified which PRO they felt best reflected their hand use and which was easiest to complete. Descriptive statistics, analyses of variance (ANOVA), effect size, and standardized response mean (SRM) were employed to describe participants, determine functional change between trials, and examine and compare PRO responsiveness. Questionnaire preference at T1 was reported.

RESULTS

Participants demonstrated functional improvement, as measured by the DASH, PRWHE, and MHQ. T1 scores: DASH = 41.85 (SD ± 22.78), MHQ = 50.13 (SD ± 18.36), and PRWHE = 48.18 (SD ± 22.07). T2 scores: DASH = 22.11 (SD ± 18.18), MHQ = 69.89 (SD ± 15.93), and PRWHE = 22.62 (SD ± 18.15). T3 scores: DASH = 17.56 (SD ± 18.01), MHQ = 75.37 (SD ± 19.19), and PRWHE = 22.40 (SD ± 19.04). Each PRO demonstrated significant test score differences between trials (p < .001). Large responsiveness (≥.80) was noted between T1 and T2: (effect size: .98-1.23; SRM: 1.31-1.49) and T1 and T3 (effect size: 1.21-1.54; SRM 1.49-1.84). Smaller responsiveness effects were noted between T2 and T3 (effect size: .35-.64, SRM: .38-.81). No significant differences between questionnaire responsiveness were found. Patients reported PRWHE easiest to complete and MHQ best reflecting their hand use.

CONCLUSIONS

DASH, MHQ, and PRWHE were each able to describe functional limitations in this cohort of patients with hand fractures. In capturing improvement over time they demonstrated comparable responsiveness in assessing change in patients with hand fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c.