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",

}

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.

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

M1 - e1715

ER -