DOES THE MODE OF DATA ACQUISITION AFFECT THE OXFORD HIP SCORE AND EQ-5D SCORE FOR PATIENTS UNDERGOING TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY?

Abstract

Disease specific or generic Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) can be completed by patients using paper and postal services (pPROMS) or via computer, tablet or smartphone (ePROMs) or by hybrid data collection, which uses both paper and electronic questionnaires. We have investigated whether there are differences in scores depending on the method of PROMs acquisition for the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the EQ-5D scores, at one and two years post operatively.

Patients for this study were identified retrospectively from a prospectively compiled arthroplasty database held at the study centre. Patient demographics, mode of preferred data collection and pre- and post-operative PROMs for Total Hip Replacements (THRs) performed at this centre between 1^st January 2018 and 31^st December 2018 were collected.

During the study period, 1494 patients underwent THRs and had complete one and two-year PROMs data available for analysis. All pre-operative scores were obtained by pPROMS. The average OHS and EQ-5D pre-operatively scores were 19.51 and 0.36 respectively. 72.02% of the patients consented to undertake post-operative questionnaires using ePROMs. The remaining 27.98% opted for pPROMS. The one and two-year OHS for ePROMS patients increased to 41.31 and 42.14 while the OHS scores for pPROMS patients were 39.80 and 39.83. At the one and two-year post-operative time intervals, a Mann-Whitney test showed statistical significance between the modes of administration for OHS (P-Value =0.044 and 0.01 respectively). The one and two-year EQ-5D for ePROMS patients increased to 0.83 and 0.84 while the EQ-5D scores for pPROMS patients were 0.79 and 0.81. The P-Value for Mann-Whitney tests comparing the modes of administration for EQ-5D were 0.13 and 0.07 respectively.

Within Orthopaedics, PROMs have become the most widely used instrument to assess patients’ subjective outcomes. However, there is no agreed mode of PROMs data acquisition. While we have demonstrated an apparent difference in scores depending on the mode of administration, further work is required to establish the influence of potentially confounding factors such as patient age, gender and familiarity with computer technology.