Decision quality instrument for treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis: a psychometric evaluation

Karen R Sepucha, Dawn Stacey, Catharine F Clay, Yuchiao Chang, Carol Cosenza, Geoffrey Dervin, Janet Dorrwachter, Sandra Feibelmann, Jeffrey N Katz, Stephen A Kearing, Henrik Malchau, Monica Taljaard, Ivan Tomek, Peter Tugwell, Carrie A Levin, Karen R Sepucha, Dawn Stacey, Catharine F Clay, Yuchiao Chang, Carol Cosenza, Geoffrey Dervin, Janet Dorrwachter, Sandra Feibelmann, Jeffrey N Katz, Stephen A Kearing, Henrik Malchau, Monica Taljaard, Ivan Tomek, Peter Tugwell, Carrie A Levin

Abstract

Background: A high quality decision requires that patients who meet clinical criteria for surgery are informed about the options (including non-surgical alternatives) and receive treatments that match their goals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties and clinical sensibility of a patient self report instrument, to measure the quality of decisions about total joint replacement for knee or hip osteoarthritis.

Methods: The performance of the Hip/Knee Osteoarthritis Decision Quality Instrument (HK-DQI) was evaluated in two samples: (1) a cross-sectional mail survey with 489 patients and 77 providers (study 1); and (2) a randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid with 138 osteoarthritis patients considering total joint replacement (study 2). The HK-DQI results in two scores. Knowledge items are summed to create a total knowledge score, and a set of goals and concerns are used in a logistic regression model to develop a concordance score. The concordance score measures the proportion of patients whose treatment matched their goals. Hypotheses related to acceptability, feasibility, reliability and validity of the knowledge and concordance scores were examined.

Results: In study 1, the HK-DQI was completed by 382 patients (79%) and 45 providers (58%), and in study 2 by 127 patients (92%), with low rates of missing data. The DQI-knowledge score was reproducible (ICC = 0.81) and demonstrated discriminant validity (68% decision aid vs. 54% control, and 78% providers vs. 61% patients) and content validity. The concordance score demonstrated predictive validity, as patients whose treatments were concordant with their goals had more confidence and less regret with their decision compared to those who did not.

Conclusions: The HK-DQI is feasible and acceptable to patients. It can be used to assess whether patients with osteoarthritis are making informed decisions about surgery that are concordant with their goals.

References

    1. Wennberg J, Fisher E, Skinner J. Geography and the debate over Medicare reform. Health Affairs. 2002. pp. W94–114.
    1. Sepucha K, Fowler FJ, Mulley AG. Policy support for patient-centered care: The need for measurable improvements in decision quality. Health Affairs. 2004. pp. VAR54–62.
    1. Comparative Effectiveness Research Position Statement. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2011. Accessed May 17, 2011.
    1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press; 2001.
    1. Weinstein JNC, Clay K, Morgan TS. Informed patient choice: Patient-centered valuing of surgical risks and benefits. Health Affairs. 2007;26:726–30. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.726.
    1. Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, Thomson R, Barratt A, Barry M, Bernstein S, Butow P, Clarke A, Entwistle V, Feldman-Stewart D, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Moumjid N, Mulley A, Ruland C, Sepucha K, Sykes A, Whelan T. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: Online international delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333:417. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Stacey D, Hawker G, Dervin G, Tomek I, Cochran N, Tugwell P, O'Connor AM. Management of chronic pain: Improving shared decision making in osteoarthritis. BMJ. 2008;336:954–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39520.699190.94.
    1. Hill J, Bird H. Patient knowledge and misconceptions of osteoarthritis assessed by a validated self-completed knowledge questionnaire (PKQ-OA) Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007;46:796,800. Epub 2006 Dec 18.
    1. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(14):i,iv. 1-74.
    1. Sepucha KR, Levin CA, Uzogara EE, Barry MJ, O'Connor AM, Mulley AG. Developing instruments to measure the quality of decisions: Early results for a set of symptom-driven decisions. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:504–10. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.009.
    1. Fowler F. Survey Research Methods. Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 1993.
    1. NIH Consensus Panel. NIH Consensus Statement on total knee replacement December 8-10, 2003. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(6):1328–1335.
    1. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–40.
    1. Barry M, Fowler FJ, Mulley AJ, Henderson JJ, Wennberg J. Patient reactions to a program designed to facilitate patient participation in treatment decisions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Med Care. 1995;33:771–82. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199508000-00003.
    1. O'Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D, Barry M, Col NF, Eden KB, Entwistle VA, Fiset V, Holmes-Rovner M, Khangura S, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner D. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009. p. Art. No.: CD001431.
    1. Hawker G, Guan J, Croxford R, Coyte P, Glazier R, Harvey B, Wright JG, Williams JI, Badley EM. A prospective population-based study of the predictors of undergoing total joint arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:3212–3220. doi: 10.1002/art.22146.
    1. Mulley AG. Assessing patients' utilities: Can the ends justify the means? Med Care. 1989;27(Suppl 3):S269–281.
    1. Redelmeier D, Rozin P, Kahneman D. Understanding patients' decisions: Cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA. 1993;270:72–76. doi: 10.1001/jama.270.1.72.
    1. Jansen S, Stiggelbout A, Wakker P, Nooij M, Noordijk E, Kievit J. Unstable preferences: A shift in valuation or an effect of the elicitation procedure? Med Decis Making. 2000;20(1):62–71. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0002000108.
    1. O'Neill T, Jinks C, Ong BN. Decision-making regarding total knee replacement surgery: A qualitative meta-synthesis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:52. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-52.
    1. Byrne MM, Souchek J, Richardson M, Suarez-Almazor M. Racial/ethnic differences in preferences for total knee replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1078–86. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.010.
    1. Hudak PL, Armstrong K, Braddock C, Frankel RM, Levinson W. Older patients' unexpressed concerns about orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1427–35. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.01077.
    1. Fagerlin A, Sepucha KR, Couper MP, Levin CA, Ubel P, Singer E, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Patients' knowledge about 9 common health conditions: Data from a national representative sample. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(Suppl 5):35S–52S.
    1. O'Connor AM, Wennberg JE, Legare F, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Moulton BW, Sepucha KR, Sodano AG, King JS. Toward the 'tipping point': Decision aids and informed patient choice. Health Affairs. 2007;26:716–25. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.716.
    1. Mancuso C, Jout J, Salvati EA, Sculco TP. Fulfillment of patients' expectations for total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:2073–8. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.01802.
    1. Krumholz HM. Informed consent to promote patient-centered care. JAMA. 2010;303:1190–1. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.309.
    1. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 3590, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2010.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever