Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_5 | Pages 13 - 13
23 Apr 2024
Lister J McDaid C Hewitt C Leggett H James S Sharma H
Full Access

Introduction

There are concerns that patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) currently used for adults requiring, undergoing or after undergoing lower limb reconstruction (LLR) are not adequately capturing the range of experiences important to these patients. The ‘Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Lower Limb Reconstruction’ (PROLLIT) study developed a conceptual framework of outcomes identified as important and relevant by adult LLR patients. This review explored whether existing PROMs address these outcomes, and exhibit content validity in this population.

Materials & Methods

A range of key PROMs was selected (n=32). Systematic and hand-searches were employed to find studies assessing content validity of these PROMs in the adult LLR population, along with PROM content and development information. A systematic review of content validity of the measures was carried out following ‘COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments’ (COSMIN) guidance, alongside conceptual mapping of the content of the PROMs against the PROLLIT conceptual framework.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_5 | Pages 28 - 28
1 Apr 2022
Leggett H Scantlebury A Hewitt C Sharma H McDaid C
Full Access

Introduction

We undertook a qualitative study to explore what is important to people with lower limb conditions requiring reconstruction (LLR) and how it impacted their quality of life (QOL), in order to develop a conceptual framework for a new patient reported outcome measure (PROM). This builds on a previous qualitative evidence synthesis of existing research to develop a preliminary conceptual framework as part of the Patient Reported Outcomes for Lower Limb Reconstruction (PROLLIT) study.

Materials and Methods

Patients (n=32) and Orthopaedic staff (n=23) were interviewed (November 2020-June 2021) from three centres in England using one-to-one, semi-structured interviews. Patient interviews focused on experiences during and after LLR, including impact on QOL. Staff interviews explored important outcomes and goals for patients and how the LLR impacted QOL. Recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 103-B, Issue SUPP_6 | Pages 18 - 18
1 May 2021
McDaid C Sharma H Leggett H Scantlebury A Hewitt C
Full Access

Introduction

There are currently no quality of life Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) that have been validated for patients with conditions requiring lower limb reconstructive surgery. The extent to which current generic and lower limb specific PROMs address relevant dimensions for these patients is unclear.

Materials and Methods

We will present an overview of the PROLLIT (Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Lower Limb Reconstruction) mixed-methods study. PROLLIT aims to establish the adequacy of current PROMS for this population, whether a new measure is required, and to develop a new measure if appropriate.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 103-B, Issue SUPP_6 | Pages 21 - 21
1 May 2021
Leggett H Scantlebury A Byrne A Harden M Hewitt C O'Carroll G Sharma H McDaid C
Full Access

Introduction

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to understand the impact of lower limb reconstruction on patient's quality of life (QOL). Existing measures have not been developed to specifically capture patient experiences amongst adults with lower limb conditions that require reconstruction surgery. This systematic review of qualitative studies (qualitative evidence synthesis) aimed to identify what is important to these patients.

Materials and Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO and Cinahl were searched from inception until November 2020. Studies were included if they employed qualitative research methods, involved patients requiring, undergoing or following lower limb reconstruction and explored patients' experiences of care, treatment, recovery and QOL. Mixed methods/population studies that did not separate the findings from each group and studies not in English were excluded. Included studies were analysed using thematic synthesis. The review followed the methodological framework published by the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group for qualitative evidence syntheses.