Determining the minimal clinically important difference of the hand function sort questionnaire in vocational rehabilitation - 30/05/19
Highlights |
• | The Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) allows for measuring the improvement of patients. |
• | The MCID can be used to better manage treatment. |
• | Knowing the MCID of the Hand Function Sort questionnaire (HFS) can improve communication between therapists. |
• | In vocational rehabilitation, the HFS is used to predict the ability to resume work. |
Abstract |
Objective |
To estimate the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of the French version of the Hand Function Sort questionnaire (HFS-F). As a comparison, the MCID of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) was also estimated.
Materials and methods |
We included French-speaking patients hospitalized in a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for chronic pain of the upper limb after an accident. HFS-F and DASH scores were collected at admission and discharge; the Patient Global Impression of Change measure (PGIC; 7 levels) was collected at discharge. The MCID was estimated by 2 methods: the anchor-based method (receiver operating characteristic [ROC], delta (Δ) mean of scores) and the objective method based on the distribution of scores (standard error of measurement, SEM).
Result |
We included 225 patients. By the anchor-based method, the MCID for the HFS-F and DASH was +26 (SD 35) (P<10−4) and −13 (SD 13) (P<10−4), respectively, and by the ROC curve, it was +10 to +12 for the Δ-HFS-F and −7.5 to −5 for the Δ-DASH. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.726 [0.638–0.781] for Δ-HFS-F and 0.768 [0.701–0.83] for Δ-DASH. The correlations between the anchor and delta scores were>0.38 (P<10−4). The SEM was 16.2 for the HFS-F and −4.3 for the DASH.
Conclusions |
Values below the SEM must be rejected. Our anchor was significantly correlated with the outcome. Therefore, we propose an MCID for the HFS-F of 26, corresponding to approximately 10% progression of the score.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : Treatment outcome, Surveys and questionnaires, Upper extremity, Recovery of function, Rehabilitation
Plan
Vol 62 - N° 3
P. 155-160 - mai 2019 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.