Background to the study. The use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) to measure effectiveness of care, and supporting patient management is being advocated increasingly. When evaluating outcome it is important to identify a PROM with good measurement properties. Purpose of the study. To review the measurement properties of the low back and neck versions of the Bournemouth Questionnaire. Methods. Bibliographic databases (e.g. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycInfo) were searched for articles evaluating the measurement properties of the Bournemouth Questionnaire. Articles were excluded that did not evaluate measurement properties of this instrument. The methodological quality of the studies selected was evaluated using the COSMIN checklist with the four point rating scale. Studies were rated as “excellent”, “good”, “fair” or “poor” based on completion of the checklist. Results. The initial search produced 6265 hits. A total of 13 studies were included in the final evaluation. Seven studies used the Bournemouth Questionnaire neck version, and six studies involved the back version. Cross-cultural translation was reported in six studies, reliability data were reported in eight studies, and responsiveness in ten studies. Conclusion. The review's findings suggest that the Bournemouth Questionnaire has suitable measurement properties for benchmarking practice in musculoskeletal settings. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. This study was sponsored by the National Council for Osteopathic Research (. www.ncor.org.uk. )

Background & purpose. Measurement inconsistency across clinical trials is tackled by the development of a core outcome measurement set. Four core outcome domains were recommended for clinical trials in patients with non-specific LBP (nsLBP): physical functioning, pain intensity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and number of deaths. This study aimed to reach consensus on core instruments to measure the first three domains. Methods & Results. The Steering Committee overseeing this project selected 17 potential core instruments for physical functioning, three for pain intensity, and five for HRQoL. Evidence on their measurement properties in nsLBP was synthesized in three systematic reviews using COSMIN methodology. Researchers, clinicians, and patients (n = 208) were invited in a Delphi survey to seek consensus on which instruments to endorse as core. Consensus was a-priori set at 67% of participants agreeing on endorsing an instrument. Two Delphi rounds were run (response rates = 44% and 41%). Agreement was reached on endorsing the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI 2.1a) for physical functioning, the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain intensity, but not on other instruments. Several participants demanded to have free of charge core instruments. Taking these results into account, the steering committee formulated the following recommendations: ODI 2.1a or 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire for physical functioning, NRS for pain intensity, Short-Form 12 or 10-item PROMIS Global Health for HRQoL. Conclusion. A core outcome measurement set is available for clinical trials in patients with nsLBP. High quality clinimetric studies directly comparing recommended and not recommended instruments are required. Conflict of interest: None. Source of funding: EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe

Background to the study:. The use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) is being increasingly advocated but data are still being collected using paper systems. This is costly and environmentally challenging. New innovations are required to balance the challenges of capturing PROM data while considering budgets, and access to IT, and patient choice. Purpose of the study:. To develop and test a mobile phone and web app for collecting patient reported outcomes about musculoskeletal symptoms. Methods:. The content of the app was developed following qualitative work with patients and clinicians, and a review of measurement properties of different PROMs. Early versions of the app underwent α- and β-testing to identify issues with functionality. The PROM app was pilot-tested to assess feasibility, responsiveness, and test-retest reliability of the PROMs. The pilot version of the app contained demographic data, the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the Bournemouth Questionnaire, and Visual Analogue Scale for pain. At follow-up additional questions exploring patient satisfaction and experience of care, plus a transition question were asked. Results:. A total of 517 patient codes were allocated. Completed datasets were gathered from patients (N=92) potentially indicating issues with acceptability and feasibility. Data analysis indicated good completion of questions. The RMDQ appeared to be largely redundant in this patient population and was removed in the final version of the app. Conclusion:. The app performed well when used by participants. Support is required for practitioners and patients to implement this electronic data capture system