Reliability of the Foot Function Index:: A report of the AOFAS Outcomes Committee..

BACKGROUND: There currently is no widely used, validated, self-administered instrument for measuring musculoskeletal functional status in individuals with nonsystemic foot disorders. The purpose of this paper was to report on the assessment of reliability of one of these instruments. We wanted to determine if the Foot Function Index (FFI), which has been validated in rheumatoid patients without fixed foot deformity or prior foot surgery, would be reliable for a population of patients with foot complaints without systemic disease. METHODS: Patients were recruited from five orthopaedic offices where the physicians were members of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Patients were asked to complete the FFI at the time of their initial office visit and then were given a second copy to complete and return by mail 1 week after their visit. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients completed the first questionnaire, and 54 patients completed the second. Reliability in this population was acceptable with an average of 23.5% of the patients providing retest values within one point of the initial response and an average of 45.3% of the patients providing the same response, for a total of 68.8% of all respondents answering within one point between their initial and second questionnaire. In two of the three categories, there were frequent nonresponses or no applicable responses. Four questions, two in the pain section and two in the activity limitation section, generated 20% or more of the nonapplicable answers. CONCLUSIONS: The FFI appears to be a reasonable tool for low functioning individuals with foot disorders. It may not be appropriate for individuals who function at or above the level of independent activities of daily living.

Issues of importance to patients seeking care from members of the AOFAS: a preliminary report of the outcomes committee of the AOFAS.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this multi-center study was to examine the outcomes of importance for patients seeking treatment for foot and ankle disorders. An improved understanding of patient outcome preferences will assist surgeons in improving patient satisfaction. METHODS: An open-ended priority function questionnaire was administered to 235 patients presenting as new patients to five different outpatient locations. The questionnaire was designed to identify activities of importance to patients and was based on the McMaster Toronto Arthritis (MACTAR) patient preference disability questionnaire. Subjects were asked to list the specific activities that were limited by their condition. Open-ended answers were written on five blank spaces and then ranked as to their importance. The visual analog pain scale was recorded as a measure of the severity of the patient's symptoms at the time the response was made. The outpatient settings were two university hospitals, two private offices with academic affiliation, and one private office. Two hundred thirty-five surveys were collected between September and November of 2000; 227 surveys were acceptable for analysis. The respondents included 132 females (58.1%), 94 males (41.4%) and one patient who did not specify his gender (0.4%). The mean age was 45.8 (range 18 to 83) years. RESULTS: Average pain at the time of assessment was 2.7 on a scale of 0 to 9 and was reported to increase to 4.8 in a typical day. The most frequently ranked limitations were difficulty with walking (159), running (73), standing (55), and exercise (54). Walking also was the issue ranked as the highest priority (77 of 159), while running (11 of 73), standing (10 of 55) and exercise (3 of 54) were assigned lesser priority values. Only 68 of 227 respondents failed to list walking as an issue. Work, sleep, and social activities were not commonly cited as issues of importance. CONCLUSION: Patients presenting to office practices identified as specializing in foot and ankle disorders are predominantly middle-aged women in mild to moderate pain. Walking is the function most frequently identified as a problem and ranked as the highest priority for improvement. Social limitations were unlikely to be named as a limitation in this population.