The Brighton musculoskeletal patient reported outcome measure (BmPROM)

an assessment of validity, reliability and responsiveness

Elizabeth Bryant, Shemane Murtagh, Laura Finucane, Carol McCrum, Christopher Mercer, Toby Smith, Guy Canby, David Rowe, A. Moore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Background: In response for the need of a freely available, stand-alone, validated outcome measure for use within musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice, sensitive enough to measure clinical effectiveness, we developed a musculoskeletal patient reported outcome measure. Objectives: This study examined the validity and reliability of the newly developed Brighton musculoskeletal Patient Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM) within physiotherapy outpatient settings. Methods: Two hundred and twenty four patients attending physiotherapy outpatient departments in South East of England with a musculoskeletal condition participated in this study. The BmPROM was assessed for user friendliness (rated feedback, n=224), reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability, n=42), validity (internal and external construct validity, n=224) and responsiveness (internal, n=25). Results: Exploratory factor analysis indicated that a two-factor model provides a good fit to the data. Factors were representative of ‘Functionality’ and ‘Wellbeing’. Correlations observed between the BmPROM and SF-36 domains provided evidence of convergent validity. Reliability results indicated that both subscales were internally consistent with alphas above the acceptable limits for both ‘Functionality’ (α = .85, 95% CI = .81- .88) and ‘Wellbeing’ (α = .80, 95% CI = .75- .84). Test-retest analyses (n= 42) demonstrated a high degree of reliability between ‘Functionality’ (ICC= .84; 95% CI = .72-.91) and ‘Wellbeing’ scores (ICC= .84; 95% CI = .72- .91). Further examination of test-retest reliability through the Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that the difference between ‘Functionality’ and ‘Wellbeing’ test scores did not vary as a function of absolute test score). Large treatment effect sizes were found for both subscales (Functionality d = 1.10; Wellbeing 1.03). Conclusion: The BmPROM is a reliable and valid outcome measure for use in evaluating physiotherapy treatment of musculoskeletal conditions.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere1715
JournalPhysiotherapy Research International
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 11 May 2018

Fingerprint

Reproducibility of Results
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Outpatients
England
Statistical Factor Analysis
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Therapeutics

Bibliographical note

This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: Bryant E, Murtagh S, Finucane L, et al. The Brighton musculoskeletal Patient‐Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM): An assessment of validity, reliability, and responsiveness. Physiother Res Int. 2018;e1715, which has been published in final form at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pri.1715. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.

Cite this

@article{800fd866074a44c1847b9a9fcb378ac1,
title = "The Brighton musculoskeletal patient reported outcome measure (BmPROM): an assessment of validity, reliability and responsiveness",
abstract = "Background: In response for the need of a freely available, stand-alone, validated outcome measure for use within musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice, sensitive enough to measure clinical effectiveness, we developed a musculoskeletal patient reported outcome measure. Objectives: This study examined the validity and reliability of the newly developed Brighton musculoskeletal Patient Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM) within physiotherapy outpatient settings. Methods: Two hundred and twenty four patients attending physiotherapy outpatient departments in South East of England with a musculoskeletal condition participated in this study. The BmPROM was assessed for user friendliness (rated feedback, n=224), reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability, n=42), validity (internal and external construct validity, n=224) and responsiveness (internal, n=25). Results: Exploratory factor analysis indicated that a two-factor model provides a good fit to the data. Factors were representative of ‘Functionality’ and ‘Wellbeing’. Correlations observed between the BmPROM and SF-36 domains provided evidence of convergent validity. Reliability results indicated that both subscales were internally consistent with alphas above the acceptable limits for both ‘Functionality’ (α = .85, 95{\%} CI = .81- .88) and ‘Wellbeing’ (α = .80, 95{\%} CI = .75- .84). Test-retest analyses (n= 42) demonstrated a high degree of reliability between ‘Functionality’ (ICC= .84; 95{\%} CI = .72-.91) and ‘Wellbeing’ scores (ICC= .84; 95{\%} CI = .72- .91). Further examination of test-retest reliability through the Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that the difference between ‘Functionality’ and ‘Wellbeing’ test scores did not vary as a function of absolute test score). Large treatment effect sizes were found for both subscales (Functionality d = 1.10; Wellbeing 1.03). Conclusion: The BmPROM is a reliable and valid outcome measure for use in evaluating physiotherapy treatment of musculoskeletal conditions.",
author = "Elizabeth Bryant and Shemane Murtagh and Laura Finucane and Carol McCrum and Christopher Mercer and Toby Smith and Guy Canby and David Rowe and A. Moore",
note = "This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: Bryant E, Murtagh S, Finucane L, et al. The Brighton musculoskeletal Patient‐Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM): An assessment of validity, reliability, and responsiveness. Physiother Res Int. 2018;e1715, which has been published in final form at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pri.1715. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1002/pri.1715",
language = "English",
journal = "Physiotherapy Research International",
issn = "1358-2267",

}

The Brighton musculoskeletal patient reported outcome measure (BmPROM) : an assessment of validity, reliability and responsiveness. / Bryant, Elizabeth; Murtagh, Shemane; Finucane, Laura; McCrum, Carol; Mercer, Christopher; Smith, Toby; Canby, Guy; Rowe, David; Moore, A.

In: Physiotherapy Research International, 11.05.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Brighton musculoskeletal patient reported outcome measure (BmPROM)

T2 - an assessment of validity, reliability and responsiveness

AU - Bryant, Elizabeth

AU - Murtagh, Shemane

AU - Finucane, Laura

AU - McCrum, Carol

AU - Mercer, Christopher

AU - Smith, Toby

AU - Canby, Guy

AU - Rowe, David

AU - Moore, A.

N1 - This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: Bryant E, Murtagh S, Finucane L, et al. The Brighton musculoskeletal Patient‐Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM): An assessment of validity, reliability, and responsiveness. Physiother Res Int. 2018;e1715, which has been published in final form at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pri.1715. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.

PY - 2018/5/11

Y1 - 2018/5/11

N2 - Background: In response for the need of a freely available, stand-alone, validated outcome measure for use within musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice, sensitive enough to measure clinical effectiveness, we developed a musculoskeletal patient reported outcome measure. Objectives: This study examined the validity and reliability of the newly developed Brighton musculoskeletal Patient Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM) within physiotherapy outpatient settings. Methods: Two hundred and twenty four patients attending physiotherapy outpatient departments in South East of England with a musculoskeletal condition participated in this study. The BmPROM was assessed for user friendliness (rated feedback, n=224), reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability, n=42), validity (internal and external construct validity, n=224) and responsiveness (internal, n=25). Results: Exploratory factor analysis indicated that a two-factor model provides a good fit to the data. Factors were representative of ‘Functionality’ and ‘Wellbeing’. Correlations observed between the BmPROM and SF-36 domains provided evidence of convergent validity. Reliability results indicated that both subscales were internally consistent with alphas above the acceptable limits for both ‘Functionality’ (α = .85, 95% CI = .81- .88) and ‘Wellbeing’ (α = .80, 95% CI = .75- .84). Test-retest analyses (n= 42) demonstrated a high degree of reliability between ‘Functionality’ (ICC= .84; 95% CI = .72-.91) and ‘Wellbeing’ scores (ICC= .84; 95% CI = .72- .91). Further examination of test-retest reliability through the Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that the difference between ‘Functionality’ and ‘Wellbeing’ test scores did not vary as a function of absolute test score). Large treatment effect sizes were found for both subscales (Functionality d = 1.10; Wellbeing 1.03). Conclusion: The BmPROM is a reliable and valid outcome measure for use in evaluating physiotherapy treatment of musculoskeletal conditions.

AB - Background: In response for the need of a freely available, stand-alone, validated outcome measure for use within musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice, sensitive enough to measure clinical effectiveness, we developed a musculoskeletal patient reported outcome measure. Objectives: This study examined the validity and reliability of the newly developed Brighton musculoskeletal Patient Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM) within physiotherapy outpatient settings. Methods: Two hundred and twenty four patients attending physiotherapy outpatient departments in South East of England with a musculoskeletal condition participated in this study. The BmPROM was assessed for user friendliness (rated feedback, n=224), reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability, n=42), validity (internal and external construct validity, n=224) and responsiveness (internal, n=25). Results: Exploratory factor analysis indicated that a two-factor model provides a good fit to the data. Factors were representative of ‘Functionality’ and ‘Wellbeing’. Correlations observed between the BmPROM and SF-36 domains provided evidence of convergent validity. Reliability results indicated that both subscales were internally consistent with alphas above the acceptable limits for both ‘Functionality’ (α = .85, 95% CI = .81- .88) and ‘Wellbeing’ (α = .80, 95% CI = .75- .84). Test-retest analyses (n= 42) demonstrated a high degree of reliability between ‘Functionality’ (ICC= .84; 95% CI = .72-.91) and ‘Wellbeing’ scores (ICC= .84; 95% CI = .72- .91). Further examination of test-retest reliability through the Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that the difference between ‘Functionality’ and ‘Wellbeing’ test scores did not vary as a function of absolute test score). Large treatment effect sizes were found for both subscales (Functionality d = 1.10; Wellbeing 1.03). Conclusion: The BmPROM is a reliable and valid outcome measure for use in evaluating physiotherapy treatment of musculoskeletal conditions.

U2 - 10.1002/pri.1715

DO - 10.1002/pri.1715

M3 - Article

JO - Physiotherapy Research International

JF - Physiotherapy Research International

SN - 1358-2267

M1 - e1715

ER -