What are the perspectives of patients with hand and wrist conditions, chronic pain, and patients recovering from stroke on the use of patient and outcome information in everyday care? A Mixed-Methods study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the patients' perspectives on the use of patient- and outcome information tools in everyday care and to investigate which characteristics affect general understanding and perceived value of patient- and outcome information. METHODS: This mixed-methods study included surveys and interviews on understanding, experience, decision-support, and perceived value in patients with hand and wrist conditions and chronic pain. We synthesized our quantitative and qualitative findings using a triangulation protocol and identified factors independently associated with general understanding and perceived value of patient- and outcome information using hierarchical logistic regression. RESULTS: We included 3379 patients. The data triangulation indicated that patients understand the outcome information, they find it valuable, it supports decision-making, and it improves patient-clinician interaction. The following variables were independently associated with better general understanding: having more difficulty with questionnaires (standardized odds ratio 0.34 [95%-CI 031-0.38]), having a finger condition (0.72 [0.57-0.92]), longer follow-up (0.75 [0.61-0.91]), and undergoing surgical treatment (ref: non-surgical treatment, 1.33 [1.11-1.59]). For more general value, these were: having more difficulty with questionnaires (0.40 [0.36-0.44]), having a wrist condition (0.71 [0.54-0.92]), better hand function (1.12 [1.02-1.22]), and requiring help with questionnaires (1.65 [1.33-2.05]). CONCLUSION: Patients value the use of patient- and outcome information tools in daily care and find it easy to understand. The factors associated with understanding and value can be targeted to personalized and value-based healthcare. We recommend using outcome information to improve patient independence, empowerment, and involvement in decision-making.

Explaining Personalized Activity Limitations in Patients With Hand and Wrist Disorders: Insights from Sociodemographic, Clinical, and Mindset Characteristics.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association of sociodemographic, clinical, and mindset characteristics on outcomes measured with a patient-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM); the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Secondly, we examined whether these factors differ when a fixed-item PROM, the Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ), is used as an outcome. DESIGN: Cohort study, using the aforementioned groups of factors in a hierarchical linear regression. SETTING: Twenty-six clinics for hand and wrist conditions in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Two samples of patients with various hand and wrist conditions and treatments: n=7111 (PSFS) and n=5872 (MHQ). INTERVENTIONS: NA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The PSFS and MHQ at 3 months. RESULTS: The PSFS exhibited greater between-subject variability in baseline, follow-up, and change scores than the MHQ. Better PSFS outcomes were associated with: no involvement in litigation (ß[95% confidence interval=-0.40[-0.54;-0.25]), better treatment expectations (0.09[0.06;0.13]), light workload (0.08[0.03;0.14]), not smoking (-0.07[-0.13;-0.01]), men sex (0.07[0.02;0.12]), better quality of life (0.07[0.05;0.10]), moderate workload (0.06[0.00;0.13]), better hand satisfaction (0.05[0.02; 0.07]), less concern (-0.05[-0.08;-0.02]), less pain at rest (-0.04[-0.08;-0.00]), younger age (-0.04[-0.07;-0.01]), better comprehensibility (0.03[0.01;0.06]), better timeline perception (-0.03[-0.06;-0.01]), and better control (-0.02[-0.04;-0.00]). The MHQ model was highly similar but showed a higher R2 than the PSFS model (0.41 vs 0.15), largely due to the R2 of the baseline scores (0.23 for MHQ vs 0.01 for PSFS). CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals can improve personalized activity limitations by addressing treatment expectations and illness perceptions, which affect PSFS outcomes. Similar factors affect the MHQ, but the baseline MHQ score has a stronger association with the outcome score than the PSFS. While the PSFS is better for individual patient evaluation, we found that it is difficult to explain PSFS outcomes based on baseline characteristics compared with the MHQ. Using both patient-specific and fixed-item instruments helps health care professionals develop personalized treatment plans that meet individual needs and goals.

The Validity and Responsiveness of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale in Patients With First Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the content, construct, and discriminative validity and responsiveness of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in patients with thumb carpometacarpal arthritis. METHODS: Data were collected at Xpert Clinics, comprising 34 outpatient hand surgery and hand therapy clinics in the Netherlands. We included 267 patients for content validity and 323 patients for construct validity and responsiveness. The PSFS items were classified into the International Classification of Function Core Set for Hand Conditions to assess content validity. We used hypothesis testing to investigate the construct validity and responsiveness. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire was used as a comparator instrument. The standardized response mean was calculated to evaluate the magnitude of change. For discriminative validity, we used independent t tests to discriminate between satisfied and dissatisfied patients. RESULTS: We classified 98% of the PSFS items in the International Classification of Function "activities" and "participation" domains, indicating good content validity. Two of six hypotheses for construct validity and three of six hypotheses for responsiveness were confirmed. The standardized response mean for the PSFS was 0.57 (0.46-0.68) and 0.47 (0.35-0.58) for the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire total score. The mean PSFS score showed good discriminative validity because it could distinguish between satisfied and dissatisfied patients at the 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The PSFS scores showed good content and discriminative validity in patients with first carpometacarpal arthritis. Hypothesis testing for responsiveness and construct validity indicates that the PSFS measures a unique construct different from the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The PSFS may be a useful scale for measuring the patient-specific status of individuals with thumb carpometacarpal arthritis.

Treatment Invasiveness and Illness Perceptions Are Strongly Associated With Outcome Expectations in Patients Treated for Hand or Wrist Conditions: A Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have shown that more-positive outcome expectations are associated with better treatment outcomes. Although this has not been shown to represent a causal relationship, there nonetheless is an interest in positively modifying outcome expectations to improve treatment outcomes. However, little is known about what is independently associated with outcome expectations in clinical practice. For example, it is unknown to what extent expectations are associated with treatment or patient characteristics such as sociodemographics or with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on patient perceptions of physical or mental health or illness. Studying factors associated with outcome expectations may provide relevant information for clinicians and researchers aiming to improve outcome expectations. Improving expectations might, in turn, improve treatment outcomes. QUESTION/PURPOSE: Which factors (that is, sociodemographics, PROMs, illness perceptions, treatment, surgeon, and location) are independently associated with outcome expectations in patients with hand or wrist conditions? METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. Between July 2018 and December 2021, we screened 21,327 patients with a diagnosed hand or wrist condition with complete baseline sociodemographic data such as age and workload. Sixty percent (12,765 of 21,327) of patients completed all relevant PROMs. We excluded patients receiving rare treatments, leaving 58% (12,345 of 21,327) for inclusion in the final sample. Those who participated were more often scheduled for surgical treatment and had higher expectations. We performed a multilevel analysis involving two steps. First, we evaluated whether patients receiving the same treatment, being counseled by the same surgeon, or being treated at the same location have more similar outcome expectations. We found that only patients receiving the same treatment had more similar outcome expectations. Therefore, we used a multilevel regression model to account for this correlation within treatments, and added treatment characteristics (such as nonsurgical versus minor or major surgery) to potential explanatory factors. Second, in the multilevel hierarchical regression analysis, we added sociodemographics (Model 1), PROMs for physical and mental health (Model 2), illness perceptions (Model 3), and treatment characteristics (most-definitive model) to assess the explained variance in outcome expectations per step and the relative association with outcome expectations. RESULTS: Sociodemographic factors such as age and workload explained 1% of the variance in outcome expectations. An additional 2% was explained by baseline PROMs for physical and mental health, 9% by illness perceptions, and 18% by treatment characteristics, resulting in an explained variance of 29% of the most-definitive model. A large number of patient and treatment characteristics were associated with outcome expectations. We used standardized betas to compare the magnitude of the effect of the different continuous and categorical variables. Among the associated variables, minor surgery (standardized beta [ß] = 0.56 [95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.68]; p < 0.001) and major surgery (ß = 0.61 [95% CI 0.49 to 0.73]; p < 0.001) had the strongest positive association with outcome expectations (receiving surgery is associated with higher outcome expectations than nonsurgical treatment). A longer illness duration expected by the patient (-0.23 [95% CI -0.24 to -0.21]; p < 0.001) and being treated for the same condition as before (-0.08 [95% CI -0.14 to -0.03]; p = 0.003) had the strongest negative association with outcome expectations. CONCLUSION: Outcome expectations are mainly associated with the invasiveness of the treatment and by patients' illness perceptions; patients before surgical treatment have more positive expectations of the treatment outcome than patients before nonsurgical treatment, even after accounting for differences in clinical and psychosocial profiles. In addition, patients with a more-positive perception of their illness had more-positive expectations of their treatment. Our findings suggest expectation management should be tailored to the specific treatment (such as surgical versus nonsurgical) and the specific patient (including their perception of their illness). It may be more beneficial to test and implement expectation management strategies for nonsurgical treatments such as physical therapy than for surgical treatments, given that our findings indicate a greater need to do so. An additional advantage of such a strategy is that successful interventions may prevent converting to surgical interventions, which is a goal of the stepped-care principles of standard care. Future studies might investigate the causality of the association between pretreatment expectations and outcomes by performing an experimental study such as a randomized controlled trial, in which boosting expectations is compared with usual care in nonsurgical and surgical groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

The Ultrashort Mental Health Screening Tool Is a Valid and Reliable Measure With Added Value to Support Decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Mental health influences symptoms, outcomes, and decision-making in musculoskeletal healthcare. Implementing measures of mental health in clinical practice can be challenging. An ultrashort screening tool for mental health with a low burden is currently unavailable but could be used as a conversation starter, expectation management tool, or decision support tool. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Which items of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4), and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ) are the most discriminative and yield a high correlation with the total scores of these questionnaires? (2) What is the construct validity and added clinical value (explained variance for pain and hand function) of an ultrashort four-item mental health screening tool? (3) What is the test-retest reliability of the screening tool? (4) What is the response time for the ultrashort screening tool? METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study. Data collection was part of usual care at Xpert Clinics, the Netherlands, but prospective measurements were added to this study. Between September 2017 and January 2022, we included 19,156 patients with hand and wrist conditions. We subdivided these into four samples: a test set to select the screener items (n = 18,034), a validation set to determine whether the selected items were solid (n = 1017), a sample to determine the added clinical value (explained variance for pain and hand function, n = 13,061), and a sample to assess the test-retest reliability (n = 105). Patients were eligible for either sample if they completed all relevant measurements of interest for that particular sample. To create an ultrashort screening tool that is valid, reliable, and has added value, we began by picking the most discriminatory items (that is, the items that were most influential for determining the total score) from the PCS, PHQ-4, and B-IPQ using chi-square automated interaction detection (a machine-learning algorithm). To assess construct validity (how well our screening tool assesses the constructs of interest), we correlated these items with the associated sum score of the full questionnaire in the test and validation sets. We compared the explained variance of linear models for pain and function using the screening tool items or the original sum scores of the PCS, PHQ-4, and B-IPQ to further assess the screening tool's construct validity and added value. We evaluated test-retest reliability by calculating weighted kappas, ICCs, and the standard error of measurement. RESULTS: We identified four items and used these in the screening tool. The screening tool items were highly correlated with the PCS (Pearson coefficient = 0.82; p < 0.001), PHQ-4 (0.87; p < 0.001), and B-IPQ (0.85; p < 0.001) sum scores, indicating high construct validity. The full questionnaires explained only slightly more variance in pain and function (10% to 22%) than the screening tool did (9% to 17%), again indicating high construct validity and much added clinical value of the screening tool. Test-retest reliability was high for the PCS (ICC 0.75, weighted kappa 0.75) and B-IPQ (ICC 0.70 to 0.75, standard error of measurement 1.3 to 1.4) items and moderate for the PHQ-4 item (ICC 0.54, weighted kappa 0.54). The median response time was 43 seconds, against more than 4 minutes for the full questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Our ultrashort, valid, and reliable screening tool for pain catastrophizing, psychologic distress, and illness perception can be used before clinician consultation and may serve as a conversation starter, an expectation management tool, or a decision support tool. The clinical utility of the screening tool is that it can indicate that further testing is warranted, guide a clinician when considering a consultation with a mental health specialist, or support a clinician in choosing between more invasive and less invasive treatments. Future studies could investigate how the tool can be used optimally and whether using the screening tool affects daily clinic decisions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.

Prevalence of Complications and Association With Patient-Reported Outcomes After Trapeziectomy With a Weilby Sling: A Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to report complications during the first year after trapeziectomy with Weilby sling using a standardized tool designed by the International Consortium for Health Outcome Measures. The secondary aim was to determine the association of complications and patient-reported outcomes 12 months after surgery. METHODS: We included patients who underwent trapeziectomy with Weilby sling between November 2013 and December 2018. All complications during the first year were scored using the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Complications in Hand and Wrist conditions (ICHAW) tool. Pain and hand function were measured before surgery and 12 months after surgery using the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). Minimally Important Change thresholds of 18.6 for MHQ pain and 9.4 for MHQ function were used to determine clinical importance. RESULTS: Of 531 patients after trapeziectomy with Weilby sling, 65% had an uneventful recovery, 16% experienced ICHAW Grade 1 deviations only, and 19% experienced Grade 2 or 3 deviations, including requiring antibiotics, corticosteroid injections, or additional surgery. On average, patients improved in pain and hand function, even in the presence of ICHAW events. Although all ICHAW grades were associated with poorer patient-reported outcomes 12 months after surgery, Grade 2 and 3 exceeded the Minimally Important Change threshold for pain and/or function. CONCLUSIONS: In 531 patients, 65% had an uneventful recovery, 16% experienced ICHAW Grade 1 deviations only, and 19% experienced grade 2 or 3 deviations. We recommend describing Grade 1 as "adverse protocol deviations" and grade 2 and 3 as complications, because of clinically relevant poorer patient-reported outcomes 12 months after surgery. The ICHAW is a promising tool to evaluate systematically and compare complications in hand surgery, although we recommend further evaluation. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Determining the Minimally Important Change of the Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire in patients undergoing trigger finger release.

INTRODUCTION: The Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) is a widely used instrument to evaluate treatment results for hand conditions. Establishing the Minimally Important Change (MIC) is essential for interpreting change in outcome that is clinically relevant. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this study was to determine the MIC of the MHQ total and subscale scores in patients undergoing trigger finger release. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study conducted between December 2011 and February 2020. METHODS: Patients completed the MHQ prior to surgery and 3 months postoperatively. The MIC of the MHQ was determined using 5 anchor-based methods (ie, 2 anchor mean change methods and 3 receiver operating characteristic methods). The median MIC value was determined to represent the triangulated MIC. RESULTS: A total of 1814 patients were included. The MIC for the MHQ total score ranged from 7.7 to 10.9, with a triangulated estimate of 9.3. The MIC estimates for 5 of 6 of the MHQ subscales ranged from 7.7 to 20.0. No MICs could be determined for the MHQ subscale "aesthetics" due to low correlations between the anchor questions and MHQ change scores. CONCLUSIONS: These MIC estimates can contribute to the interpretation of clinical outcomes following trigger finger release and for assessment of power in prospective trials.

Rasch Analysis of the Michigan Hand Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: The Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) is a commonly used evaluation for hand problems, but previous work reports conflicting evidence regarding the subscale structures. Rasch analysis uses probabilistic modeling of items and responses: if scale items can be fit to the Rasch model, it provides evidence of construct validity and interval-level measurement for precise statistical estimates. We conducted Rasch analysis on the MHQ to evaluate model fit, unidimensionality of the subscales, bias across person factors, and conversion to interval metrics. METHODS: We conducted a secondary Rasch analysis of MHQ data from 924 persons with thumb basal joint osteoarthritis using the RUMM2030 software. Modeling was based on responses for the most affected hand and person factors including age, sex, type of work, whether the dominant side was the most affected, and surgical status. The analysis plan followed the published recommendations for examinations of person and item fit, with iterative adjustments as required. RESULTS: A total of 11 of the 37 items required rescoring to create orderly progression of scoring thresholds. Only the overall hand function and pain subscales could be fit to the Rasch model, demonstrating unidimensionality and good reliability of fit estimates. Dividing the activities of daily living subscale into unilateral and bilateral activities also allowed unilateral activities to fit the model. Persistent misfitting in other subscales suggested local dependency and response bias across multiple person factors. CONCLUSIONS: This Rasch analysis of the MHQ raises concerns regarding the validity and fundamental measurement properties of this widely used outcome evaluation when used as a summary score.

Which Factors Are Associated With Satisfaction With Treatment Results in Patients With Hand and Wrist Conditions? A Large Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Satisfaction with treatment results is an important outcome domain in striving for patient-centered and value-based healthcare. Although numerous studies have investigated factors associated with satisfaction with treatment results, most studies used relatively small samples. Additionally, many studies have only investigated univariable associations instead of multivariable associations; to our knowledge, none have investigated the independent association of baseline sociodemographics, quality of life, improvement in pain and function, experiences with healthcare delivery, and baseline measures of mental health with satisfaction with treatment results. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What factors are independently associated with satisfaction with treatment results at 3 months post-treatment in patients treated for common hand and wrist conditions? (2) What factors are independently associated with the willingness to undergo the treatment again at 3 months post-treatment in patients treated for common hand and wrist conditions? Among the factors under study were baseline sociodemographics, quality of life, improvement in pain and function, experiences with healthcare delivery, and baseline measures of mental health. METHODS: Between August 2018 and May 2020, we included patients who underwent carpal tunnel release, nonsurgical or surgical treatment for thumb-base osteoarthritis, trigger finger release, limited fasciectomy for Dupuytren contracture, or nonsurgical treatment for midcarpal laxity in one of the 28 centers of Xpert Clinics in the Netherlands. We screened 5859 patients with complete sociodemographics and data at baseline. Thirty-eight percent (2248 of 5859) of these patients had complete data at 3 months. Finally, participants were eligible for inclusion if they provided a relevant answer to the three patient-reported experience measure (PREM) items. A total of 424 patients did not do this because they answered "I don't know" or "not applicable" to a PREM item, leaving 31% (1824 of 5859) for inclusion in the final sample. A validated Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire was administered at 3 months, which identified the patients' level of satisfaction with treatment results so far on a 5-point Likert scale (research question 1, with answers of poor, moderate, fair, good, or excellent) and the patients' willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances (research question 2, with answers of yes or no). A hierarchical logistic regression model was used to identify whether baseline sociodemographics, quality of life, change in outcome (patient-reported outcome measures for hand function and pain), baseline measures of mental health (including treatment credibility [the extent to which a patient attributes credibility to a treatment] and expectations, illness perception, pain catastrophizing, anxiety, and depression), and PREMs were associated with each question of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire at 3 months post-treatment. We dichotomized responses to our first question as good and excellent, which were considered more satisfied, and poor, moderate, and fair, which were considered less satisfied. After dichotomization, 57% (1042 of 1824) of patients were classified as more satisfied with the treatment results. RESULTS: The following variables were independently associated with satisfaction with treatment results, with an area under the curve of 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.84) (arranged from the largest to the smallest standardized odds ratio [SOR]): greater decrease in pain during physical load (standardized odds ratio 2.52 [95% CI 2.18 to 2.92]; p < 0.001), patient's positive experience with the explanation of the pros and cons of the treatment (determined with the question: "Have you been explained the pros and cons of the treatment or surgery?") (SOR 1.83 [95% CI 1.41 to 2.38]; p < 0.001), greater improvement in hand function (SOR 1.76 [95% CI 1.54 to 2.01]; p < 0.001), patients' positive experience with the advice for at-home care (determined with the question: "Were you advised by the healthcare providers on how to deal with your illness or complaints in your home situation?") (SOR 1.57 [95% CI 1.21 to 2.04]; p < 0.001), patient's better personal control (determined with the question: "How much control do you feel you have over your illness?") (SOR 1.24 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.40]; p < 0.001), patient's more positive treatment expectations (SOR 1.23 [95% CI 1.04 to 1.46]; p = 0.02), longer expected illness duration by the patient (SOR 1.20 [95% CI 1.04 to 1.37]; p = 0.01), a smaller number of symptoms the patient saw as part of the illness (SOR 0.84 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.97]; p = 0.02), and less concern about the illness the patient experiences (SOR 0.84 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.99]; p = 0.04). For willingness to undergo the treatment again, the following variables were independently associated with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.83) (arranged from the largest to the smallest standardized OR): patient's positive experience with the information about the pros and cons (determined with the question: "Have you been explained the pros and cons of the treatment or surgery?") (SOR 2.05 [95% CI 1.50 to 2.80]; p < 0.001), greater improvement in hand function (SOR 1.80 [95% CI 1.54 to 2.11]; p < 0.001), greater decrease in pain during physical load (SOR 1.74 [95% CI 1.48 to 2.07]; p < 0.001), patient's positive experience with the advice for at home (determined with the question: "Were you advised by the healthcare providers on how to deal with your illness or complaints in your home situation?") (SOR 1.52 [95% CI 1.11 to 2.07]; p = 0.01), patient's positive experience with shared decision-making (determined with the question: "Did you decide together with the care providers which care or treatment you will receive?") (SOR 1.45 [95% CI 1.06 to 1.99]; p = 0.02), higher credibility the patient attributes to the treatment (SOR 1.44 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.73]; p < 0.001), longer symptom duration (SOR 1.27 [95% CI 1.09 to 1.52]; p < 0.01), and patient's better understanding of the condition (SOR 1.17 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.34]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that to directly improve satisfaction with treatment results, clinicians might seek to: (1) improve the patient's experience with healthcare delivery, (2) try to influence illness perception, and (3) boost treatment expectations and credibility. Future research should confirm whether these suggestions are valid and perhaps also investigate whether satisfaction with treatment results can be predicted (instead of explained, as was done in this study). Such prediction models, as well as other decision support tools that investigate patient-specific needs, may influence experience with healthcare delivery, expectations, or illness perceptions, which in turn may improve satisfaction with treatment results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

What Are the Minimally Important Changes of Four Commonly Used Patient-reported Outcome Measures for 36 Hand and Wrist Condition-Treatment Combinations?

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used to assess treatment outcomes for hand and wrist conditions. To adequately interpret these outcomes, it is important to determine whether a statistically significant change is also clinically relevant. For this purpose, the minimally important change (MIC) was developed, representing the minimal within-person change in outcome that patients perceive as a beneficial treatment effect. Prior studies demonstrated substantial differences in MICs between condition-treatment combinations, suggesting that MICs are context-specific and cannot be reliably generalized. Hence, a study providing MICs for a wide diversity of condition-treatment combinations for hand and wrist conditions will contribute to more accurate treatment evaluations. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What are the MICs of the most frequently used PROMs for common condition-treatment combinations of hand and wrist conditions? (2) Do MICs vary based on the invasiveness of the treatment (nonsurgical treatment or surgical treatment)? METHODS: This study is based on data from a longitudinally maintained database of patients with hand and wrist conditions treated in one of 26 outpatient clinics in the Netherlands between November 2013 and November 2020. Patients were invited to complete several validated PROMs before treatment and at final follow-up. All patients were invited to complete the VAS for pain and hand function. Depending on the condition, patients were also invited to complete the Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) (finger and thumb conditions), the Patient-rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) (wrist conditions), or the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) (nerve conditions). Additionally, patients completed the validated Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire at final follow-up. Final follow-up timepoints were 3 months for nonsurgical and minor surgical treatment (including trigger finger release) and 12 months for major surgical treatment (such as trapeziectomy). Our database included 55,651 patients, of whom we excluded 1528 who only required diagnostic management, 25,099 patients who did not complete the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire, 3509 patients with missing data in the PROM of interest at baseline or follow-up, and 1766 patients who were part of condition-treatment combinations with less than 100 patients. The final sample represented 43% (23,749) of all patients and consisted of 36 condition-treatment combinations. In this final sample, 26% (6179) of patients were managed nonsurgically and 74% (17,570) were managed surgically. Patients had a mean ± SD age of 55 ± 14 years, and 66% (15,593) of patients were women. To estimate the MIC, we used two anchor-based methods (the anchor mean change and the MIC predict method), which were triangulated afterward to obtain a single MIC. Applying this method, we calculated the MIC for 36 condition-treatment combinations, comprising 22 different conditions, and calculated the MIC for combined nonsurgical and surgical treatment groups. To examine whether the MIC differs between nonsurgical and surgical treatments, we performed a Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare the MICs of all PROM scores between nonsurgical and surgical treatment. RESULTS: We found a large variation in triangulated MICs between the condition-treatment combinations. For example, for nonsurgical treatment of hand OA, the MICs of VAS pain during load clustered around 10 (interquartile range 8 to 11), for wrist osteotomy/carpectomy it was around 25 (IQR 24 to 27), and for nerve decompression it was 21. Additionally, the MICs of the MHQ total score ranged from 4 (nonsurgical treatment of CMC1 OA) to 15 (trapeziectomy with LRTI and bone tunnel), for the PRWHE total score it ranged from 2 (nonsurgical treatment of STT OA) to 29 (release of first extensor compartment), and for the BCTQ Symptom Severity Scale it ranged from 0.44 (nonsurgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome) to 0.87 (carpal tunnel release). An overview of all MIC values is available in a freely available online application at: https://analyse.equipezorgbedrijven.nl/shiny/mic-per-treatment/. In the combined treatment groups, the triangulated MIC values were lower for nonsurgical treatment than for surgical treatment (p < 0.001). The MICs for nonsurgical treatment can be approximated to be one-ninth (IQR 0.08 to 0.13) of the scale (approximately 11 on a 100-point instrument), and surgical treatment had MICs that were approximately one-fifth (IQR 0.14 to 0.24) of the scale (approximately 19 on a 100-point instrument). CONCLUSION: MICs vary between condition-treatment combinations and differ depending on the invasiveness of the intervention. Patients receiving a more invasive treatment have higher treatment expectations, may experience more discomfort from their treatment, or may feel that the investment of undergoing a more invasive treatment should yield greater improvement, leading to a different perception of what constitutes a beneficial treatment effect. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our findings indicate that the MIC is context-specific and may be misleading if applied inappropriately. Implementation of these condition-specific and treatment-specific MICs in clinical research allows for a better study design and to achieve more accurate treatment evaluations. Consequently, this could aid clinicians in better informing patients about the expected treatment results and facilitate shared decision-making in clinical practice. Future studies may focus on adaptive techniques to achieve individualized MICs, which may ultimately aid clinicians in selecting the optimal treatment for individual patients.

Rasch analysis of the brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire in patients with thumb osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: The brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire (brief MHQ) is a 12-item self-reported measure of hand function for patients with hand disorders which has been validated using Classical Test Theory. Rasch analysis can provide more detailed psychometric information. The purpose of this Rasch analysis is to assess the psychometric properties of the brief MHQ for patients with thumb osteoarthritis, and to make recommendations for improvements to the questionnaire if needed.  METHODS: The Michigan Hand Questionnaire and demographic data were collected from 923 thumb osteoarthritis patients treated in specialized clinics for hand surgery and therapy in the Netherlands. Rasch analysis was performed on the 12 items of the brief MHQ using RUMM 2030 to assess the fit of the brief MHQ to the Rasch model. To determine fit, analysis of fit summary statistics, individual person fit and individual item fit were assessed. Threshold distributions were assessed to identify if any items required rescoring. The Person Separation Index was calculated to measure reliability of the questionnaire. Differential item functioning was assessed to identify item bias, and Principal Component Analysis was performed to identify unidimensionality and local dependence. RESULTS: The brief MHQ showed misfit (χ2 = 1312.5, p < 0.0001) with 6 items having disordered thresholds and 9 items requiring rescoring. After deleting 3 of the rescored items due to significant item fit residuals, the brief MHQ had an acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.79). Misfit to the model (χ2 = 49.6, p = 0.0001), multidimensionality (10.2% of t-tests were significant), and item bias from non-uniform differential item functioning for 7 items across many person variables were still found. CONCLUSION: Although no satisfactory solutions were found to correct the misfit to the Rasch model, it is recommended that the response options of the brief MHQ be rescored, and that items 6, 9 and 10 be removed. The lack of unidimensionality indicates that the items do not represent the singular construct of hand disability and that totalling the scores of the brief MHQ does not provide a valid measure of hand disability for people with thumb osteoarthritis. The 37-item Michigan Hand Questionnaire may provide a better assessment of hand disability for patients with thumb osteoarthritis.

Routinely-Collected Outcomes of Proximal Row Carpectomy.

PURPOSE: To describe patient-reported pain and function 12 months after proximal row carpectomy (PRC). Secondary outcomes included return to work, grip strength, range of wrist motion, satisfaction with treatment results, and complications. METHODS: This cohort study was part of the British Society for Surgery of the Hand Studyathon 2021, using ongoing routinely-collected data of 304 eligible patients who underwent PRC (73% scapholunate advanced collapse, 11% scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse wrist; 11% Kienböck, 5% other indications) from Xpert Clinics, the Netherlands between 2012-2020. The primary outcome was the Patient Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation total score (range, 0-100, lower scores indicate better performance). RESULTS: Of the 304 patients, the primary outcome was available in 217 patients. The total Patient Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation score improved from 60 (95% confidence interval [CI], 57-63) to 38 (95% CI, 35-41) at 3 months, and 26 (95% CI, 23-29) at 12 months. The pain and function subscales improved by 18 (95% CI, 17-20) and 16 (95% CI, 14-18) points, respectively. At 12 months, 82% had returned to work at a median time of 12 (95% CI, 9-14) weeks following PRC. Grip strength did not improve. Wrist flexion and extension demonstrated a clinically irrelevant decrease. Satisfaction with treatment result was excellent in 27% of patients, good in 42%, fair in 20%, moderate in 6%, and poor in 5%. Complications occurred in 11% of patients, and conversion to wrist arthroplasty occurred in 2 patients. CONCLUSION: A clinically relevant improvement in patient-reported pain and function was observed at 3 months after PRC, with continued improvement to 12 months. These data can be used for shared-decision making and expectation management. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Is Early Active Motion After 3-Ligament Tenodesis Noninferior to Late Active Motion? A Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: If early active motion after 3-ligament tenodesis is safe, it may yield more patient comfort and an early return to activities. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether early active motion is noninferior to late active motion after 3-ligament tenodesis for scapholunate interosseous ligament injuries. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter cohort study, using a noninferiority design with propensity score matching, compared a late active motion protocol (immobilization for 10-16 days, wrist therapy in weeks 5-6) with an early active motion protocol (immobilization for 3-5 days, wrist therapy during week 2). Patients who were older than 18 years, had complete baseline information on demographics, and underwent 3-ligament tenodesis were included. The outcome measures were postoperative Patient-Reported Wrist/Hand Evaluation scores, pain, complications, return to work, range of motion, grip strength, and satisfaction with treatment results at 3 months of follow-up. RESULTS: After propensity matching, a total of 108 patients were included. Patient-Reported Wrist/Hand Evaluation and pain scores during physical load following an early active motion protocol were noninferior compared with scores following a late active motion protocol. Furthermore, early active motion did not lead to an increase of complications, differences in range of motion or grip strength, or less satisfaction with the treatment result. An earlier return to work was not observed. CONCLUSIONS: Early active motion leads to noninferior results without more complications as compared with late active motion. Based on these findings, early active motion can be considered safe, and might be recommended due to its potential benefits compared with late active motion after 3-ligament tenodesis. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic III.

Prevalence and Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications Following Open A1 Pulley Release for a Trigger Finger or Thumb.

PURPOSE: Although A1 pulley release is an effective treatment to reduce pain and improve hand function, complications may occur. More insight into risk factors for complications is essential to improve patient counseling and potentially target modifiable risk factors. This study aimed to identify factors associated with complications following A1 pulley release. METHODS: Patients completed baseline questionnaires, including patient characteristics, clinical characteristics, and the Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire. We retrospectively reviewed medical records to identify complications classified using the International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement Complications in Hand and Wrist conditions tool. Grade 1 complications comprise treatment with additional hand therapy, splinting, or analgesics, grade 2 treatment with antibiotics or steroid injections, grade 3A minor surgical treatment, grade 3B major surgical treatment, and grade 3C complex regional pain syndrome. Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the contribution of patient characteristics, clinical characteristics, and patient-reported outcome measurement scores to complications. RESULTS: Of the included 3,428 patients, 16% incurred a complication. The majority comprised milder grades 1 (6%) and 2 (7%) complications, followed by more severe grades 3B (2%), 3C (0.1%), and 3A (0.1%) complications. A longer symptom duration (standardized odds ratio [SOR], 1.09), ≥3 preoperative steroid injections (SOR, 3.22), a steroid injection within 3 months before surgery (SOR, 2.02), and treatment of the dominant hand (SOR, 1.34), index finger (SOR, 1.65), and middle finger (SOR, 2.01) were associated with a higher complication rate. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that ≥3 preoperative steroid injections and a steroid injection within 3 months before surgery were the most influential factors contributing to complications. These findings can assist clinicians during patient counseling and may guide preoperative treatment. We recommend that clinicians should consider avoiding steroid injections within 3 months before surgery and to be reluctant to perform >2 steroid injections. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.

Patients With Higher Treatment Outcome Expectations Are More Satisfied With the Results of Nonoperative Treatment for Thumb Base Osteoarthritis: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how satisfaction with treatment outcome is associated with patient mindset and Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ) scores at baseline and 3 months in patients receiving nonoperative treatment for first carpometacarpal joint (CMC-1) osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Cohort study SETTING: A total of 20 outpatient locations of a clinic for hand surgery and hand therapy in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=308) receiving nonoperative treatment for CMC-1 OA, including exercise therapy, an orthosis, or both, between September 2017 and February 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Nonoperative treatment (ie, exercise therapy, an orthosis, or both) MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Satisfaction with treatment outcomes was measured after 3 months of treatment. We measured total MHQ score at baseline and at 3 months. As baseline mindset factors, patients completed questionnaires on treatment outcome expectations, illness perceptions, pain catastrophizing, and psychological distress. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis and mediation analysis to identify factors associated with satisfaction with treatment outcomes. RESULTS: More positive pretreatment outcome expectations were associated with a higher probability of being satisfied with treatment outcomes at 3 months (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.25). Only a relatively small part (33%) of this association was because of a higher total MHQ score at 3 months. None of the other mindset and hand function variables at baseline were associated with satisfaction with treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that patients with higher pretreatment outcome expectations are more likely to be satisfied with treatment outcomes after 3 months of nonoperative treatment for CMC-1 OA. This association could only partially be explained by a better functional outcome at 3 months for patients who were satisfied. Health care providers treating patients nonoperatively for CMC-1 OA should be aware of the importance of expectations and may take this into account in pretreatment counseling.

Test-retest Reliability and Construct Validity of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire in Patients with Hand and Wrist Conditions: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: A patient's satisfaction with a treatment result is an important outcome domain as clinicians increasingly focus on patient-centered, value-based healthcare. However, to our knowledge, there are no validated satisfaction metrics focusing on treatment results for hand and wrist conditions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Among patients who were treated for hand and wrist conditions, we asked: (1) What is the test-retest reliability of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire? (2) What is the construct validity of that outcomes tool? METHODS: This was a prospective study using two samples: a test-retest reliability sample and a construct validity sample. For the test-retest sample, data collection took place between February 2020 and May 2020, and we included 174 patients at the end of their treatment with complete baseline data that included both the primary test and the retest. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with a mean time difference of 7.2 ± 1.6 days. For the construct validity sample, data collection took place between January 2012 and May 2020. We included 3742 patients who completed the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire, VAS, and the Net Promotor Score (NPS) at 3 months. Construct validity was evaluated using hypothesis testing in which we correlated the patients' level of satisfaction to the willingness to undergo the treatment again, VAS scores, and the NPS. We performed additional hypothesis testing on 2306 patients who also completed the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). Satisfaction with the treatment result was measured as the patients' level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale and their willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances. RESULTS: We found high reliability for level of satisfaction measured on Likert scale (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.86 [95% CI 0.81 to 0.89]) and almost-perfect agreement for both level of satisfaction measured on the Likert scale (weighted kappa 0.86 [95% CI 0.80 to 0.91]) and willingness to undergo the treatment again (kappa 0.81 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.92]) of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire. Construct validity was good to excellent as seven of the eight hypotheses were confirmed. In the confirmed hypotheses, there was a moderate-to-strong correlation with VAS pain, VAS function, NPS, MHQ pain, and MHQ general hand function (Spearman rho ranged from 0.43 to 0.67; all p < 0.001) and a strong to very strong correlation with VAS satisfaction and MHQ satisfaction (Spearman rho 0.73 and 0.71; both p < 0.001). The rejected hypothesis indicated only a moderate correlation between the level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale and the willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances (Spearman rho 0.44; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire has good-to-excellent construct validity and very high test-retest reliability in patients with hand and wrist conditions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This questionnaire can be used to reliably and validly measure satisfaction with treatment result in striving for patient-centered care and value-based healthcare. Future research should investigate predictors of variation in satisfaction with treatment results.

What Is the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Quality of Life and Other Patient-reported Outcomes? An Analysis of the Hand-Wrist Study Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and its associated lockdowns in many parts of the world, have changed our daily lives and may have a psychological impact on around the globe. However, it is unknown how this influences the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of patients involved in ongoing clinical research and medical care. For both the current and potential future lockdowns, it is important to determine if PROMs collected during such a period can be interpreted with confidence. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is there a difference in quality of life between patients in the COVID-19 period group (March 23, 2020 to May 4, 2020) and patients in a reference period group (from the same period in 2018 or 2019)? (2) Is there a difference in pain, hand function, anxiety, depression, and illness perception between patients in the COVID-19 period group and patients in the reference period group? METHODS: This study was part of a large cohort study with routine outcome measures of patients with hand and wrist conditions. To answer our research questions, we analyzed two samples because not all PROMs were sent to participants at the same time points after treatment. The first sample consisted of all participants who completed PROMs on quality of life (QoL), pain, and hand function at their final follow-up time point, which was either 3, 6, or 12 months post-treatment. The second sample consisted of participants who completed PROMs 3 months post-treatment on anxiety, depression, and illness perception. Each sample consisted of two groups: a COVID-19 period group and a reference period group. We included 1613 participants in the first sample (COVID-19 period group: n = 616; reference period group: n = 997) and 535 participants in the second sample (COVID-19 period group: n = 313; reference period group: n = 222). The primary outcome was QoL, expressed in the EuroQol 5-Dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) index score. Secondary outcomes were the other domains on the EQ-5D, as well as pain, hand function, anxiety, depression, and illness perception. RESULTS: We found no between-group differences in the EQ-5D index score (standardized mean difference 0.035; p = 0.98). Furthermore, there were no between-group differences in PROM scores for hand function, anxiety, or depression. There were, however, a few small differences in subdomain items regarding pain and illness perception, but we believe in aggregate that these are unlikely to make a clinically important difference in our main finding. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated lockdown had no influence on QoL and had little influence on secondary outcomes in participants who were part of the Hand-Wrist Study Cohort. This finding implies that PROMs data collected during this period can be used with confidence in clinical research. Our findings indicate that when a pandemic like this occurs again, we can continue to use PROMs for analysis in clinical research or routine outcome measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

A Standard Set for Outcome Measurement in Patients With Hand and Wrist Conditions: Consensus by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Hand and Wrist Working Group.

PURPOSE: To describe the principles, process, and results of creating the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) standard set for hand and wrist conditions. METHODS: Following the standardized methods of ICHOM, an international working group of hand surgeons, therapists, and researchers was assembled to develop an evidence-based, patient-centered, standard set of outcome measures for patients with hand and wrist conditions. Multiple systematic reviews were performed to support our choices of outcome domains and tools for hand and wrist conditions. Fourteen video conferences were held between March 2018 and March 2020, and a modified Delphi process was used. RESULTS: A consensus was reached on 5 measurement tracks: the thumb, finger, wrist, nerve, and severe hand trauma tracks, with a distinction between regular and extended tracks for which specific allocation criteria applied. The standard set contains a selection of outcome tools and predefined time points for outcome measurement. Additionally, we developed a hierarchy for using the tracks when there are multiple conditions, and we selected risk-adjustment, case-mix variables. CONCLUSIONS: The global implementation of the ICHOM standard set for hand and wrist conditions may facilitate value-based health care for patients with hand and wrist conditions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The ICHOM standard set for hand and wrist conditions can enable clinical decision making, quality improvement, and comparisons between treatments and health care professionals.

Beneficial Effects of Nonsurgical Treatment for Symptomatic Thumb Carpometacarpal Instability in Clinical Practice: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe outcomes of nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic thumb carpometacarpal joint (CMC-1) instability. Secondary, to evaluate the conversion rate to surgical treatment. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: A total of 20 outpatient clinics for hand surgery and hand therapy in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: A consecutive sample of patients with symptomatic CMC-1 instability (N=431). INTERVENTION: Nonsurgical treatment including exercise therapy and an orthosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain (visual analog scale [VAS], 0-100) and hand function (Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire [MHQ], 0-100) at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months. Conversion to surgery was recorded for all patients with a median follow-up of 2.8 years (range, 0.8-6.7y). RESULTS: VAS scores for pain during the last week, at rest, and during physical load improved with a mean difference at 3 months of 17 (97.5% CI, 9-25), 13 (97.5% CI, 9-18), and 19 (97.5% CI, 12-27), respectively (P<.001). No difference was present at 3 months for MHQ total score, but the subscales activities of daily living, work, pain, and satisfaction improved by 7 (97.5% CI, 1-14), 10 (97.5% CI, 4-16), 5 (97.5% CI, 2-9), and 12 (97.5% CI, 2-22) points, respectively (P<.001-.007). After median follow-up of 2.8 years, only 59 participants (14%) were surgically treated. Both in the subgroups that did and did not convert to surgery, VAS pain scores decreased at 3 months compared with baseline (P<.001-.010), whereas MHQ total score did not improve in both subgroups. However, VAS and MHQ scores remained worse for patients who eventually converted to surgery (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large sample of patients with symptomatic CMC-1 instability, nonsurgical treatment demonstrated clinically relevant improvements in pain and aspects of hand function. Furthermore, after 2.8 years, only 14% of all patients were surgically treated, indicating that nonsurgical treatment is a successful treatment of choice.