11/17/2009An Evidence-Based Approach to                    What are outcome measures?the Selection of OutcomeMeasures for ...
11/17/2009  The International Classification of                                                                      Measu...
11/17/2009                    Practical Example                                          Ask a PICO Question“Do patients w...
11/17/2009                      Reliability                                                                     ValidityIs...
11/17/2009                Statistical Analysis of Reliability                                                Statistical A...
11/17/2009                      Validity                                                      Responsiveness• Clear descri...
11/17/2009                            Respondent Burden                                                                   ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Outcome-measures-LLL event-London region-2009-kennedy.pdf

554 views
450 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
554
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Outcome-measures-LLL event-London region-2009-kennedy.pdf

  1. 1. 11/17/2009An Evidence-Based Approach to What are outcome measures?the Selection of OutcomeMeasures for AHPs Any measurement of a patient’s health status that can change as a result of time, treatment or disease (MacDermid J 2002) Donna Kennedy, BSc OT, MSc, CHT Clinical Specialist Hand Therapy Honorary Research AssociateHow many outcome measures are you Pub Med Nov 2009 aware of?How many outcome measures do you Outcome measures - 486,379 use? Outcome measures and OT - 2169 Standardised Outcome Measures How can we use outcome measures? • To determine if treatment is causing a change• Published • To demonstrate to others that treatment has• Detailed instructions for administration, resulted in clinically important change scoring and interpreting the test • To evaluate programs of care• Defined purpose • To identify subgroups of patients who most• Population specific benefit from care• Published data indicating acceptable • To evaluate quality improvements reliability and validity • Clinical research (MacDermid J 2002) 1
  2. 2. 11/17/2009 The International Classification of Measuring for Quality Improvement inFunctioning, Disability and Health (ICF) (WHO 2002) the NHS• Impairments- loss or abnormality of psychologic, physiologic, or anatomic structure or function "We can only be sure to improve what we• Activity limitations- difficulties in performing activities in a manner or within a range that is considered normal can actually measure“ Lord Darzi, High Quality Care for All, June 2008• Participation Restriction- a disadvantage resulting from impairment or activity limitation that limits or prevents fulfilment of a role that is normal for the individual Barriers Helpful hints…….• Time• Cost • Be organised• Training requirements • Keep notes • Date your work PI (C) O PI(C)O Questions Element Define Example Patient “How would I Do adults with traumatic succinctly describe lower limb amputation…• Patient group these patients?” Intervention “What is the main …who receive OT in the• Intervention action I am acute care setting considering?”• (Control) (Control) “What is (are) the other compared with patients• Outcome option(s)?” who do not receive OT Outcome “What do I/ the patient demonstrate greater (CEMB 2009) want to happen/ not independence in ADL at happen?” discharge? 2
  3. 3. 11/17/2009 Practical Example Ask a PICO Question“Do patients with P: Adults with RA rheumatoid arthritis I: OT demonstrate improved hand C: (no OT) following O: Hand function (Activity limitation) occupational therapy?” Planning your search When searching, throw a big net! Inclusions (P) Adults, RA (I) OT, Hand therapy Exclusions (P) Paediatrics, rheumatologic disease other than RA (I) Hand Surgery, rheumatologic medication (O) Impairment (grip strength, ROM) Participation restriction (quality of life)1: rheumatoid adj arthritis Literature Searching Psychometric Properties2: adults3: (1 and 2)4: occupational therapy 1. Conduct5: hand therapy electronic search6: (4 or 5) 2. Apply7: activities adj of adj daily adj living inclusion/exclusion8: hand adj function criteria to titles,9: (7 or 8)10: assessment abstracts11. evaluation 3. Hand search12. outcome measure reference lists for13. (10 or 11 or 12) additional tools14. (3 and 6 and 9 and 13) 3
  4. 4. 11/17/2009 Reliability ValidityIs the measurement Does the test measure consistent and free what it is intended to from error? measure? Search 2; Psychometric Properties Responsiveness 1: Michigan adj Hand adj Outcomes adj Measure 2: MHQ 3: (1 or 2) 4: Patient adj Evaluation adj MeasureIs the measure able to 5: PEM detect change over 6: (4 or 5) time? 7: reliability 8: validity 9: responsiveness 10: (7 or 8 or 9) 11: (3 or 6 and 10) Hierarchy of Evidence Scales of Measurement Types of Level 1a Systematic reviews & meta-analysis Units with equal Distance, age, Level 1b Randomized controlled trial (RCT) Reliability Ratio intervals, measured time, weight from true zero Level 2a Systematic reviews & meta-analysis of randomized & non- randomized controlled trials Intrarater Equal intervals Calendar years, Interval between numbers, IQ, degrees Level 2b Controlled trials, cohort & poor quality RCTs Interrater but not related to centigrade true zero Level 4 Case series Test-retest Rank order of MMT, functional Level 5 Expert opinion including literature/ narrative reviews, consensus statements, description studies & individual Ordinal observations status, pain case studies Category labels or Sex, nationality, Level ? What someone told me once or I learnt 15 years ago Nominal classification blood type ( from Portney and Watkins 2000) 4
  5. 5. 11/17/2009 Statistical Analysis of Reliability Statistical Analysis of Reliability Interval or ratio data (age, time, weight, grip Nominal data (sex, blood type, diagnosis) - strength, IQ) - Intraclass correlation Kappa statistic coefficients (ICC) Interpretation Interpretation < 40% - poor to fair agreement < .50 – poor 40 – 60% - moderate agreement .50 to .75 - moderate > 60% - substantial agreement > .75 - good > 80% - excellent agreement > .90 – suggested for clinical measurements (Landis and Loch 1977) (Portney and Watkins 2000) Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) Reliability Test-retest reliability of pain-free grip strength for one trial left and right • Reliability estimates, standard errors hands (Kennedy D 2008) reported? ICC 2,1 SEM (Kg) • Are methods of collecting reliability data clear? One grip left 0.96 0.8 hand • Might reliability estimates or standard One grip 0.92 1.2 errors of measurement differ substantially right hand for various populations?7.6 8.4 9.2 10 10.8 11.6 12.4 68% chance grip is +/- 1 SEM or G • Rationale for time elapsed between tests +/- 0.8 mean and in study design to ensure changes in 95% chance grip is +/- 2 SEM or G grip +/- 1.6 health status were minimal? Validity Criterion-related and predictive validity • Face validity- (weakest form) indicates a tool appears to test what it is supposed to • Statistics -Spearman’s rank or Pearson’s test correlation • Content validity - indicates that the items in a tool adequately sample the content that • Score 0 to 1.0 - scores closer to 1 have higher defines the variable being measured correlation. 1.0 • Construct validity- ability to measure an abstract concept 0 • Criterion- related validity- (most practical and most objective) indicates that the outcomes of one tool, the tool being assessed, can be used as a substitute measure for a gold standard • (Portney and Wakins 2000, pg 82) 5
  6. 6. 11/17/2009 Validity Responsiveness• Clear description of methods to collect validity data? • The ability to detect change over time• Is validation sample described in enough detail • If testing effectiveness, then score must change (gender, age, ethnicity, and language)? in proportion to the patient’s status change, and• Is there reason to believe validity will differ remain the same when the patient has not substantially for various populations? changed• Is evidence of content validity presented? • For research - the change must be large enough to be statistically significant• Is evidence of construct validity presented for each proposed use? • For clinical purposes- the change must be precise enough to show increments of• Are criterion validity data presented with a clear meaningful change rationale and support for the choice of criteria measure? (Portney and Watkins 2000) Analysis of Responsiveness Effect Size• Independent samples t-test – compares the • T-test tells us if the difference between groups is mean scores of two different groups of people or statistically significant conditions • Effect size indicates the relative magnitude of• Paired-samples t-test- compares mean scores the differences between the means for the same group of people on two different • Interpretation: occasions < .4 – small• Analysis of variance- used with 3 or more .5 moderate conditions or groups .8 large(Pallant 2005) (Cohen 1988) Responsiveness Interpretability• Is information provided on change scores?• Is effect size reported with information on • Is information provided on the relationship of methods used in calculation? scores to clinically recognised conditions or• Are responsiveness claims derived from need for specific treatments? longitudinal data? • Is information provided on the relationship of• Is the population being tested clearly identified? scores or changes in scores to commonly .4 .8 recognised life events? • Is information provided on how well scores predict known relevant events? 6
  7. 7. 11/17/2009 Respondent Burden Administrative Burden • Information provided on • Does the instrument place undue strain on the amount of training/ respondent? • Information provided on time needed to education/expertise needed complete the instrument? by staff to administer, score • Information provided about the reading level or use instrument? assumed? • Information provided about • Information provided about special requirements any resources required for or requests placed on subjects? administration of instrument, • Information provided on the acceptability of the such a computer hardware? instrument? What do we do now? Next Steps Ask yourself…….. Identify and implement outcome measures…. • in your setting Can you demonstrate that • Locally your treatment is causing • Nationally a change? • Internationally Can you demonstrate to others that your treatment has resulted in clinically important change?• Andresen EM (2000) “Criteria for Assessing the Tools of Disability Outcomes Research”, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81:2, S15-S20.• Brettle A, Grant MJ (2003) Finding Evidence for Practice: a workbook for health professionals. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.• Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1988.• Jerosch-Herold C (2005) “An Evidence-Based Approach to Choosing Outcome Measures: a Checklist for the Critical Appraisal of Validity, Reliability and Responsiveness Studies”, British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68:8, 347-353.• Kendall N (1997) Developing outcome assessments: a step by step approach New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy Dec, 11 - 17• Landis JR, Loch GG (1977) “The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data”, Biometrics, 33: 159-74.• Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Burnam MA, Patrick DL (1996) “Evaluating Quality –of –Life and Health Status Instruments: Development of Scientific Review Criteria”, Clinical Therapeutics, 18:5, 979-992.• MacDermid J (2002) “Outcome Measurement in the Upper Extremity” in Rehabilitation of the Hand and Upper Extremity, 5th edition, Mosby, St Louis.• Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2009) Focusing clinical questions.• Pallant J (2005)SPSS Survival Manual, 2nd ed. .Open University Press, Berkshire.www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1036• Portney LG, Watkins MP (2000) Foundations of Clinical Research, Prentice Hall Health, New Jersey.• World Health Organisation (2002) “Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF”, Geneva, http://www.who.int/classification/icf 7

×