Comparison of the responsiveness of the Foot Health Status Questionnaire and the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index in older people

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Shannon E Munteanu¹  Nicoletta Frescos¹  Sonja Ristevski¹  Maria Auhl¹  Hylton B Menz¹ 

[1] Department of Podiatry, School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora 3086, Victoria, Australia

关键词: Responsiveness;    Questionnaires;    Health status;    Foot;   

Others  :  1164509
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-014-0158-4

 received in 2014-07-17, accepted in 2014-10-09,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

In recent years, several questionnaires have been developed for the assessment of foot health and its impact on quality of life. In order for these tools to be useful outcome measures in clinical trials, their ability to detect change over time (responsiveness) needs to be determined. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the responsiveness of two commonly-used questionnaires in older people with foot pain.

Methods

Participants (n?=?59; 24 women and 35 men, mean age [SD] 82.3 [7.8] years) allocated to the intervention arm of a randomised controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of extra-depth footwear compared to usual care completed the Foot Health Status Questionnaire (FHSQ) and Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index (MFPDI) at baseline and 16 weeks. Responsiveness of the FHSQ subscales (pain, function, footwear and general foot health) and MFPDI subscales (pain, functional limitation and concern about appearance) was determined using (i) paired t-tests, (ii) Cohen¿s d, (iii) the standardised response mean (SRM), and (iv) the Guyatt index.

Results

Overall, the FHSQ pain subscale exhibited the highest responsiveness, as evidenced by a highly significant paired t-test (p <0.001), Cohen¿s d = 0.63 (medium effect size), SRM = 0.50 (medium effect size) and Guyatt index = 1.70 (huge effect size). The next most responsive measure was the FHSQ function subscale, as evidenced by a borderline paired t-test (p = 0.050), Cohen¿s d = 0.37 (small effect size), SRM = 0.26 (small effect size) and GI = 1.22 (very large effect size). The FHSQ footwear, FHSQ general foot health and MFPDI pain, functional limitation and concern about appearance subscales demonstrated lower responsiveness, with negligible to medium effect sizes.

Conclusion

The FHSQ pain and function subscales were most responsive to change in older people with foot pain receiving a footwear intervention. These findings provide useful information to guide researchers in selecting appropriate outcome measures for use in future clinical trials of foot disorders.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Menz et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Thomas MJ, Roddy E, Zhang W, Menz HB, Hannan M, Peat G: The population prevalence of foot and ankle pain in middle and old age: a systematic review. Pain 2011, 152:2870-2880.
• [2]Benvenuti F, Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Gangemi S, Baroni A: Foot pain and disability in older persons: an epidemiologic survey. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995, 43:479-484.
• [3]Menz HB, Dufour AB, Casey VA, Riskowski JL, McLean RR, Katz P, Hannan MT: Foot pain and mobility limitations in older adults: the Framingham foot study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2013, 68:1281-1285.
• [4]Menz HB, Tiedemann A, Kwan MMS, Plumb K, Lord SR: Foot pain in community-dwelling older people: an evaluation of the Manchester foot pain and disability index. Rheumatology 2006, 45:863-867.
• [5]Hill CL, Gill T, Menz HB, Taylor AW: Prevalence and correlates of foot pain in a population-based study: the North West Adelaide health study. J Foot Ankle Res 2008, 1:2. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Button G, Pinney S: A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int 2004, 25(8):521-525.
• [7]Martin RL, Irrgang JJ: A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2007, 37:72-84.
• [8]Walmsley S, Williams AE, Ravey M, Graham A: The rheumatoid foot: a systematic literature review of patient-reported outcome measures. J Foot Ankle Res 2010, 3:12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Riskowski JL, Hagedorn TJ, Hannan MT: Measures of foot function, foot health, and foot pain. Arthritis Care Res 2011, 63:S229-S239.
• [10]Hunt KJ, Hurwitt D: Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research. TJ Bone Joint Surg Am 2013, 95:e118. 111¿119
• [11]Shultz SOA, Ramsey O, Schmitz M, Wyatt V, Cook C: A systematic review of outcome tools used to measure lower leg conditions. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2013, 8:838-848.
• [12]Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G: Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987, 40:171-178.
• [13]Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD: Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53:459-468.
• [14]Beaton DE: Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine 2000, 25:3192-3199.
• [15]Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR: Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56:395-407.
• [16]Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J: Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:102-109.
• [17]Lydick E, Epstein RS: Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res 1993, 2:221-226.
• [18]Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF: Effect sizes for interpreting change in health status. Med Care 1989, 27:S178-S189.
• [19]Bennett PJ, Patterson C, Wearing S, Baglioni T: Development and validation of a questionnaire designed to measure foot-health status. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1998, 88:419-428.
• [20]Garrow AP, Papageorgiou AC, Silman AJ, Thomas E, Jayson MIV, Macfarlane GJ: Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess disabling foot pain. Pain 2000, 85:107-113.
• [21]Landorf KB, Keenan AM: An evaluation of two foot-specific, health-related quality-of-life measuring instruments. Foot Ankle Int 2002, 23:538-546.
• [22]Dawson J, Doll H, Coffey J, Jenkinson C, Oxford , Birmingham F: Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007, 15(8):918-931.
• [23]van der Zwaard BC, Terwee CB, Roddy E, Terluin B, van der Horst HE, Elders PJ: Evaluation of the measurement properties of the Manchester foot pain and disability index. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014, 15:276. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Menz HB, Frescos N, Munteanu SE: Effectiveness of off-the-shelf footwear in reducing foot pain in Australian Department of Veterans¿ Affairs recipients not eligible for medical grade footwear: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2013, 14:106. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Menz HB, Auhl M, Ristevski S, Frescos N, Munteanu SE: Effectiveness of off-the-shelf, extra-depth footwear in reducing foot pain in older people: a randomized controlled trial.J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2014. doi:10.1093/gerona/glu1169.
• [26]Roddy E, Muller S, Thomas E: Defining disabling foot pain in older adults: further examination of the Manchester foot pain and disability index. Rheumatology 2009, 48:992-996.
• [27]Apelqvist JBK, van Houtum WH, Nabuurs-Franssen MH, Schaper N: International consensus and practical guidelines on the management and the prevention of the diabetic foot. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2000, 16(Suppl 1):S84-S92.
• [28]Pfeiffer E: A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1975, 23:433-441.
• [29]Nancarrow S: Footwear suitability scale: a measure of shoe fit for people with diabetes. Australas J Podiatr Med 1999, 33:57-62.
• [30]Menz HB, Sherrington C: The footwear assessment form: a reliable clinical tool for the evaluation of footwear characteristics of relevance to postural stability in older adults. Clin Rehabil 2000, 14:657-664.
• [31]Williams A: Footwear assessment and management. Podiatry Now 2006, May:S1-S8.
• [32][http://www.healthy-footwear-guide.com] webcite Healthy Footwear Guide []
• [33]Barton CJ, Bonanno D, Menz HB: Development and evaluation of a tool for the assessment of footwear characteristics. J Foot Ankle Res 2009, 2:10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxkUZfZX7Ek] webcite Dr Comfort Shoe Fitting Techniques []
• [35]Menz HB, Auhl M, Ristevski S, Frescos N, Munteanu SE: Evaluation of the accuracy of shoe fitting in older people using three-dimensional foot scanning. J Foot Ankle Res 2014, 7:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [36]Waxman R, Woodburn H, Powell M, Woodburn J, Blackburn S, Helliwell P: FOOTSTEP: a randomized controlled trial investigating the clinical and cost effectiveness of a patient self-management program for basic foot care in the elderly. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56:1092-1099.
• [37]Spink MJ, Menz HB, Fotoohabadi MR, Wee E, Landorf KB, Hill KD, Lord SR: Effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention to prevent falls in community dwelling older people with disabling foot pain: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2011, 342:d3411.
• [38]Gijon-Nogueron G, Ndosi M, Luque-Suarez A, Alcacer-Pitarch B, Munuera PV, Garrow A, Redmond AC: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Manchester foot pain and disability index into Spanish. Qual Life Res 2014, 23(2):571-579.
• [39]Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ; 1988.
• [40]Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G: Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50:869-879.
• [41][http://www.bwgriffin.com/gsu/courses/edur9131/content/Effect_Sizes_pdf5.pdf] webcite How to calculate effect sizes from published research articles: A simplified methodology []
• [42]Bennett PJ, Patterson C, Dunne MP: Health-related quality of life following podiatric surgery. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2001, 91:164-173.
• [43]Dawson J, Coffey J, Doll H, Lavis G, Cooke P, Herron M, Jenkinson C: A patient-based questionnaire to assess outcomes of foot surgery: validation in the context of surgery for hallux valgus. Qual Life Res 2006, 15(7):1211-1222.
• [44]Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL: Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 1991, 12:S142-S158.
• [45]Landorf KB, Radford JA, Hudson S: Minimal Important Difference (MID) of two commonly used outcome measures for foot problems. J Foot Ankle Res 2010, 3:7. BioMed Central Full Text
• [46]Bruce B, Fries JF: The Stanford health assessment questionnaire: dimensions and practical applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1:20. BioMed Central Full Text
• [47]Tennant A, Conaghan PG: The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum 2007, 57:1358-1362.