Search

Objectives: This study aimed to determine whether responses to Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form v2.0 - Physical Function 8c (PROMIS PF8c) items differed when the use of a 7-day recall period was compared with no specified recall period.Methods: Using a within-subject design, we surveyed 1810 individuals from the US general population, administering PROMIS PF8c at survey beginning and end. The order of measure presentation was randomly assigned. We calculated recall difference scores (RDSs) as no recall score minus 7-day recall score using both item response theory-based T scores and raw summed scores. We examined the distribution and created Bland-Altman plots for both RDSTscore and RDSRaw. We also calculated correlations between no recall versus 7-day recall T score and raw scores. Finally, we determined whether differences in no recall versus 7-day recall scores were associated with patient-reported PF.Results: RDSTscore and RDSRaw had means (root mean square differences) of 0.00 (5.43) and -0.04 (3.79), respectively. The vast majority (%) of RDSTscore and RDSRaw values fell between the Bland-Altman limits of agreement (-10.65 to 10.66 and -7.46 to 7.38, respectively). Pearson's correlations between no recall and 7-day recall for T scores and raw scores were 0.88 and 0.87, respectively. Effect sizes for mean RDSTscore and RDSRaw compared across level of Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group performance status, patient global impression of PF severity, and single PF items were near 0.Conclusions: We did not find any significant recall period effect on PF8c responses. Therefore, we recommend the use of the PROMIS physical function standard, with no specified recall time period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multidimensional patient-reported outcomes are a critical part of assessing patients to better understand their well-being during treatment. The PROMIS-29 assessment tool is utilized as a component of assessing multidimensional pain scales. It includes patient-reported measures of pain, mood, sleep, social participation, and function. Currently, there are no data on whether a patient's immediate environment (remote versus in person) influences the reported patient outcomes measurement of a multidimensional tool represented as PROMIS-29 data. Methods: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. Subjects were identified and consecutively enrolled upon entry into a chronic pain or spine center in the United States. The PROMIS-29 v2.1 was recorded. Statistical differences were assessed among age groups and across the seven domains of the assessment. Results: A total of 25,187 distinct patients were enrolled in the study from August 2018 to December 2020 with a presenting baseline measurement of PROMIS-29. The PROMIS-29 v2.1 was evaluated across the seven domains, and subgroup age analysis was performed for patients completing surveys in the clinical setting (non-remote group) and those completing the survey in the remote setting (remote group) during entry into spine and pain practices across the United States. For mental health scores, those less than 40 years of age and those over 80 years of age showed significant differences in ratings of anxiety and depression in the remote versus non-remote setting. Regarding physical health scores, those aged 60–79 showed a significant difference in the remote versus non-remote ratings for pain interference (p = 0.005; 63.9 vs. 64.4), physical function (p = 0.000; 36.4 vs. 35.7), and fatigue (p = 0.020; 57.2 vs. 57.7), while subjects over 80 years of age showed a statistical difference between the remote versus non-remote setting only in rating physical function (p = 0.025; 33.0 vs. 34). Notably, the rating of sleep disturbance in the remote versus non-remote setting was the only significant variable in the 40–59 age category (p = 0.000; 60.0 vs. 59.1). Those less than 40 years of age also reported a significant difference in the remote versus non-remote setting when rating sleep disturbance (p = 0.000; 60.5 vs. 58.9). With regard to social function, only those older than 80 years showed a significant difference in rating of ability in the remote compared to the non-remote setting (p = 0.031; 39.6 vs. 40.7). Conclusions: This data set is the first published data describing the influence of environment (remote versus in person) on PROMIS-29 outcome measurements in the chronic pain population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]