Patient-reported outcome for 17,648 patients in 5 different Swedish orthopaedic quality registers before and 1 year after surgery: an observational study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.6577Keywords:
Degenerative diseases, EQ-5D, Foot and ankle, Hip, Knee, National quality registries, Patient-reported outcome, SpineAbstract
Background and purpose: The EQ-5D is a patientreported outcome measure (PROM). To make priorities and allocate resources between patients and surgical procedures it is necessary to evaluate outcome differences, which is why comparing PROMs between registers is important. We compared EQ-5D data and the follow-up rate for selected diagnoses reported to Swedish orthopedic registers before and 1 year after surgery.
Patients and methods: Patients from 5 orthopedic registers (Swespine, Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register, Swedankle, and Swefoot) who, in 2014–2018, underwent surgery in southern Sweden were included in the study. Data on the EQ-5D index, individual questions, and the EQ-VAS at baseline and at the 1-year follow-up was compared.
Results: 17,648 patients had completed the EQ-5D pre- and 1-year postoperatively. The follow-up rate ranged from 32% to 88%. All registers showed a statistical and clinically relevant improvement in the EQ-5D index (mean improvement 0.29–0.39), where patients who underwent hip arthroplasties experienced the largest improvement. The EQ-5D index improvements in patients with foot and ankle surgeries were larger than for patients with knee arthroplasties and spinal surgeries. The dimensions “self-care” and “usual activities” had the largest change in patients reporting “some problems.”
Conclusion: All 5 registers showed a clinically relevant improvement 1 year postoperatively regarding the EQ-5D index, supporting continuous resource allocation to these groups of patients and surgical procedures. However, using PROM data to present register differences was challenged by the high number of non-responders.
Downloads
References
Weldring T, Smith S M. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights 2013; 6: 61-8. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-03080. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4137/HSI.S11093
Wilson I, Bohm E, Lubbeke A, Lyman S, Overgaard S, Rolfson O, et al. Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4(6): 357-67. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180080. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.180080
Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37(1): 53-72. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6
Teni F S, Rolfson O, Devlin N, Parkin D, Naucler E, Burstrom K, et al. Longitudinal study of patients’ health-related quality of life using EQ-5D-3L in 11 Swedish National Quality Registers. BMJ Open 2022; 12(1): e048176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048176
Group E. Euroqol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Euroqol Group. Health Policy 1990; 16(3): 199-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9
Devlin N J, Parkin D, Browne J. Patient-reported outcome measures in the NHS: new methods for analysing and reporting EQ-5D data. Health Econ 2010; 19(8): 886-905. doi: 10.1002/hec.1608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1608
Devlin N J, Brooks R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: past, present and future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2017; 15(2): 127-37. doi: 10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5
Jansson K A, Granath F. Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) before and after orthopedic surgery. Acta Orthop 2011; 82(1): 82-9. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2010.548026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2010.548026
Djukanovic I BL, Hagberg M, Tillander B, Coster M. Health-related quality of life in patients before and after planned orthopedic surgery: a prospective follow-up study. Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs 2011; 15: 185-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijotn.2011.04.002
Rupel V P, Slabe-Erker R, Divjak M. Comparing quality of life of general population and orthopedic patients in Slovenia. Value in Health Regional Issues 2020; 22(C): 93-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2020.07.575
Rolfson O, Eresian Chenok K, Bohm E, Lubbeke A, Denissen G, Dunn J, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries. Acta Orthop 2016; 87(Suppl. 1): 3-8. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2016.1181815. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1181815
Rolfson O, Bohm E, Franklin P, Lyman S, Denissen G, Dawson J, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries: report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthop 2016; 87(Suppl .1): 9-23. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816
Obradovic M, Lal A, Liedgens H. Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013; 11: 110. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-110
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011; 20(10): 1727-36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
Feng Y, Devlin N J, Shah K K, Mulhern B, van Hout B. New methods for modelling EQ-5D-5L value sets: an application to English data. Health Econ 2018; 27(1): 23-38. PMID: 28833854. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3560
Eneqvist T, Nemes S, Kärrholm J, Burstrom K, Rolfson O. How do EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L compare in a Swedish total hip replacement population? Acta Orthop 2020; 91(3): 272-8. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1746124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1746124
Todd K H, Funk J P. The minimum clinically important difference in physician-assigned visual analog pain scores. Acad Emerg Med 1996; 3(2): 142-6. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.1996.tb03402.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.1996.tb03402.x
Kelly A M. The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain. Emerg Med J 2001; 18(3): 205-7. doi: 10.1136/emj.18.3.205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.18.3.205
Strand V, Boers M, Idzerda L, Kirwan J R, Kvien TK, Tugwell P S, et al. It’s good to feel better but it’s better to feel good and even better to feel good as soon as possible for as long as possible. Response criteria and the importance of change at OMERACT 10. J Rheumatol 2011; 38(8): 1720-7. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.110392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.110392
Payakachat N, Ali M M, Tilford J M. Can the EQ-5D detect meaningful change? A systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics 2015; 33(11): 1137-54. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0295-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0295-6
Coster M C, Nilsdotter A, Brudin L, Bremander A. Minimally important change, measurement error, and responsiveness for the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score. Acta Orthop 2017; 88(3): 300-4. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2017.1293445. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2017.1293445
Ernstsson O, Janssen M F, Heintz E. Collection and use of EQ-5D for follow-up, decision-making, and quality improvement in health care: the case of the Swedish National Quality Registries. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2020; 4(1): 78. doi: 10.1186/s41687-020-00231-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-00231-8
Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 2001; 10(7): 621-35. doi: 10.1023/a:101317183120.
Sullivan P W, Slejko J F, Sculpher M J, Ghushchyan V. Catalogue of EQ-5D scores for the United Kingdom. Med Decis Making 2011; 3 1(6): 800-4. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11401031. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X11401031
Ingelsrud L H, Wilkinson J M, Overgaard S, Rolfson O, Hallstrom B, Navarro R A, et al. How do patient-reported outcome scores in international hip and knee arthroplasty registries compare? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2022; 480(10): 1884-96. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000002306
Choi J K, Geller J A, Yoon R S, Wang W, Macaulay W. Comparison of total hip and knee arthroplasty cohorts and short-term outcomes from a single-center joint registry. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27(6): 837-41. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.01.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.01.016
Coster M C, Rosengren B E, Bremander A, Karlsson M K. Surgery for adult acquired flatfoot due to posterior tibial tendon dysfunction reduces pain, improves function and health related quality of life. Foot Ankle Surg 2015; 21(4): 286-9. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2015.04.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2015.04.003
Tordrup D, Mossman J, Kanavos P. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D to clinical change: is the patient experience adequately represented? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2014; 30(1): 10-19. doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000640. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462313000640
Johnsen L G, Hellum C, Nygaard O P, Storheim K, Brox J I, Rossvoll I, et al. Comparison of the SF6D, the EQ5D, and the Oswestry Disability Index in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc disease. BMC Musculoskel Disord 2013; 14: 148. doi: 10.1186/1471-247414-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-148
Paulsen A, Roos E M, Pedersen A B, Overgaard S. Minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients 1 year postoperatively. Acta Orthop 2014; 85(1): 39-48. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2013.867782. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2013.867782
Most J, Hoelen T A, Spekenbrink-Spooren A, Schotanus M G M, Boonen B. Defining clinically meaningful thresholds for patient-reported outcomes in knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37(5): 837-44. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.092. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.092
Wang K, Eftang C N, Jakobsen R B, Aroen A. Review of response rates over time in registry-based studies using patient-reported outcome measures. BMJ Open 2020; 10(8): e030808. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030808. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030808
Bohm E R, Kirby S, Trepman E, Hallstrom B R, Rolfson O, Wilkinson J M, et al. Collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries: multinational survey and recommendations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2021; 479(10): 2151-66. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001852. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000001852
Wiitavaara B, Fahlstrom M, Djupsjobacka M. Prevalence, diagnostics and management of musculoskeletal disorders in primary health care in Sweden: an investigation of 2000 randomly selected patient records. J Eval Clin Pract 2017; 23(2): 325-32. doi: 10.1111/jep.12614. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12614
Davis A M, King L K, Stanaitis I, Hawker G A. Fundamentals of osteoarthritis: outcome evaluation with patient-reported measures and functional tests. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2022; 30(6): 775-85. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2021.07.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2021.07.016
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Maria C Cöster, Ann Bremander, Anna Nilsdotter
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
