The Patient Perspective on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Elective Hand Surgery: A Convergent Mixed-Methods Analysis

Purpose Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have traditionally been used for research purposes, but are now being used to evaluate outcomes from the patient’s perspective and inform ongoing management and quality of care. We used quantitative and qualitative approaches to evaluate the short-version Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) with regard to patient preference and measurement of patient goals and their responsiveness after treatment. Methods Patients 18 years or older undergoing elective hand surgery received the QuickDASH and PSFS questionnaires before and at 6 weeks after surgery. Two additional questions intended to elicit patients’ preferences regarding the QuickDASH and PSFS were included. Responsiveness was measured by change in pre- to postoperative score. We analyzed patients’ responses to the 2 additional questions to identify themes in PROM preferences. Results from the quantitative and qualitative analyses were combined into a convergent mixed-methods (eg, quantitative and qualitative) analysis. Results Thirty-eight patients completed preoperative questionnaires; 25 (66%) completed postoperative questionnaires. Seventeen patients (77%) preferred the PSFS, 3 (14%) had no preference, 2 (9%) preferred the QuickDASH. The average change from pre- to postoperative QuickDASH was –10 (SD, 20), and that of the PSFS was –27 (SD, 26). Ten patients (40%) reported QuickDASH score changes above the minimal clinically importance difference (MCID), 17 patients (68%) reported PSFS score changes above the MCID. Content analysis revealed 4 themes in preference for a PROM: instrument simplicity (ease of instrument understanding and completion), personalized assessment (individualization and relevance), goal directed (having measurable aims or objectives), distinct items (concrete or specific instrument items or functions). Conclusions Most patients felt the PSFS better measured their goals because it is a simple, personalized instrument with distinct domains. Clinical relevance Whereas standardized PROMs may better compare across populations, physicians, or conditions, employing PROMs that address patient-specific goals may better assess aspects of care most important to patients. A combination of these 2 types of PROMs can be used to assess outcomes and inform quality of care.