RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Value-based healthcare models will require prioritization of the patient's voice in their own care toward better outcomes. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) gives patients a voice and leads providers to actionable treatments across a broad range of diagnoses. However, better interpretation of PROMIS measures is needed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Self-Efficacy for Managing Symptoms (SE), Pain Interference (PI), Fatigue, and Depression measures to discriminate patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) in primary care, determining if that accuracy is stable over time and/or retained when PROMIS score thresholds are set at either ½ or 1 SD worse than the reference population mean. METHODS: Primary care patients completed the five PROMIS measures and answered the PASS yes/no question at intake (n = 360), 3-14 days follow-up (n = 230), and 45-60 days follow-up (n = 227). Thresholds (optimal, ½ SD, and 1 SD worse than reference values) for PROMIS T-scores associated with PASS were determined through receiver-operator curve analysis. Accuracy was calculated at the three time points for each threshold value. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine combinations of PROMIS measures that best predicted PASS. RESULTS: PROMIS PF, SE, PI, and Fatigue optimal score thresholds (maximizing sensitivity and specificity) yielded area under the curve values of 0.77-0.85, with accuracies ranging from 71.7% to 79.1%. Accuracy increased minimally (1.9% to 5.5%) from intake to follow-ups. Thresholds of 1 SD worse than the mean for PROMIS PF and PI measures and ½ SD worse for SE and Fatigue overall retained accuracy versus optimal (+ 1.3% to - 3.6%). Regression models retained SE, PI, and Fatigue as independent predictors of PASS, and minimally increased accuracy to 83.1?%. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes actionable PROMIS score thresholds that are stable over time and anchored to patient self-reported health status, increasing interpretability of PF, SE, PI, and Fatigue scores. The findings support the use of these PROMIS measures in primary care toward improving provider-patient communication, prioritizing patient concerns, and optimizing clinical decision making.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: As the role of generic patient-reported outcomes (PROs) expands, important questions remain about their interpretation. In particular, how the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Instrumentation System (PROMIS) t score values correlate with the patients' perception of success or failure (S/F) of their surgery is unknown. The purposes of this study were to characterize the association of PROMIS t scores, the patients' perception of their symptoms (patient acceptable symptom state [PASS]), and determination of S/F after surgery. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study contacted patients after the 4 most common foot and ankle surgeries at a tertiary academic medical center (n = 88). Patient outcome as determined by phone interviews included PASS and patients' judgment of whether their surgery was a S/F. Assessment also included PROMIS physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and depression (D) scales. The association between S/F and PASS outcomes was evaluated by chi-square analysis. A 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) evaluated the ability of PROMIS to discriminate PASS and/or S/F outcomes. Receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the ability of pre- (n = 63) and postoperative (n = 88) PROMIS scores to predict patient outcomes (S/F and PASS). Finally, the proportion of individuals classified by the identified thresholds were evaluated using chi-square analysis. RESULTS: There was a strong association between PASS and S/F after surgery (chi-square <0.01). Two-way ANOVA demonstrated that PROMIS t scores discriminate whether patients experienced positive or negative outcome for PASS ( P < .001) and S/F ( P < .001). The ROC analysis showed significant accuracy (area under the curve > 0.7) for postoperative but not preoperative PROMIS t scores in determining patient outcome for both PASS and S/F. The proportion of patients classified by applying the ROC analysis thresholds using PROMIS varied from 43.0% to 58.8 % for PASS and S/F. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who found their symptoms and activity at a satisfactory level (ie, PASS yes) also considered their surgery a success. However, patients who did not consider their symptoms and activity at a satisfactory level did not consistently consider their surgery a failure. PROMIS t scores for physical function and pain demonstrated the ability to discriminate and accurately predict patient outcome after foot and ankle surgery for 43.0% to 58.8% of participants. These data improve the clinical utility of PROMIS scales by suggesting thresholds for positive and negative patient outcomes independent of other factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, prospective comparative series.