| Popis: |
Context Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been endorsed for providing patient-centered care. However, PROMs must represent their target populations. Objective To identify the primary concerns of collegiate athletes experiencing injury and compare those with the content of established PROMs. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Collegiate athletic training facilities. Patients or Other Participants Collegiate athletes experiencing injury (N = 149). Main Outcome Measure(s) Open-ended responses to the Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile were used to identify primary concerns, which were linked to International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health taxonomy codes. Items of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; modified Disablement of the Physically Active Scale; Lower Extremity Functional Scale; Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS); International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC); Foot and Ankle Ability Measure; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; Functional Arm Scale for Throwers; and Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic questionnaire were linked to International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health codes. We calculated χ2 single-sample goodness-of-fit tests to determine if 70% of the content was shared between PROMs and participant-generated codes. Results Participant-generated concerns were primarily related to sport participation (16%) and pain (23%). Chi-square tests showed that the Lower Extremity Functional Scale and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure presented significant content differences, with common participant-generated lower extremity responses at all levels. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; modified Disablement of the Physically Active Scale; KOOS; IKDC; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand; Functional Arm Scale for Throwers; and Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic questionnaire did not have significant content differences for level 2 codes; still, significant differences were present for level 3 analyses except for the KOOS and IKDC (P < .001). All measures except the IKDC contained significant superfluous content (P < .05). Conclusions The presence of significant content differences supports clinician-perceived barriers regarding the relevance of established PROMs. However, the IKDC was a relevant and efficient PROM for evaluating the primary concerns of collegiate athletes experiencing lower extremity injury. Clinicians should consider using patient-generated measures to support coverage of patient-specific concerns in care. |
