Scholarlink

Purpose <p>The iMTA productivity cost questionnaire (iPCQ) has been recommended as a measurement tool for productivity cost, however, its use in routine care is hindered by the length of this questionnaire (18 questions). This study developed and tested a short-form (SF-) iPCQ.</p> Method <p>A secondary analysis of the Groningen Spine Cohort’s baseline data from patients with low back pain referred for tertiary care was performed. Six SFs were evaluated against the comprehensive iPCQ. Spearman correlation (r), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, agreement), standard error of measurement (SEM), and Bland-Altman’s plot tested the congruence of the SFs with the comprehensive iPCQ.</p> Results <p>The sample consisted of 1220 patients with low back pain. The SF version with the highest correlation (SF-3; 7 items) with the comprehensive iPCQ had <i>r</i> = 0.99, ICC = 0.99, SEM = 295, while the SF with the least number of items (SF-6; 5 items) had <i>r</i> = 0.84, ICC = 0.91, SEM = 2063. The mean productivity cost estimates of SF-3 and SF-6 were €3414 (95% CI: 3036–3791) and €3333 (95% CI: 2970–3696) respectively while that for the comprehensive iPCQ amounted to €3456 (95% CI: 3189–3720).</p> Conclusion <p>A SF with seven questions was developed with a high agreement with the comprehensive iPCQ. Initial clinimetric testing was satisfactory. Further assessment is recommended.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Routine measurement in low back pain; towards a pragmatic patient-reported productivity cost outcome measurement using the institute for medical technology assessment productivity cost questionnaire

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月21日

查看全文
  • Adekunle Z. Ademiluyi,
  • Antoinette D. I. van Asselt,
  • Michiel F. Reneman

摘要

Purpose

The iMTA productivity cost questionnaire (iPCQ) has been recommended as a measurement tool for productivity cost, however, its use in routine care is hindered by the length of this questionnaire (18 questions). This study developed and tested a short-form (SF-) iPCQ.

Method

A secondary analysis of the Groningen Spine Cohort’s baseline data from patients with low back pain referred for tertiary care was performed. Six SFs were evaluated against the comprehensive iPCQ. Spearman correlation (r), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, agreement), standard error of measurement (SEM), and Bland-Altman’s plot tested the congruence of the SFs with the comprehensive iPCQ.

Results

The sample consisted of 1220 patients with low back pain. The SF version with the highest correlation (SF-3; 7 items) with the comprehensive iPCQ had r = 0.99, ICC = 0.99, SEM = 295, while the SF with the least number of items (SF-6; 5 items) had r = 0.84, ICC = 0.91, SEM = 2063. The mean productivity cost estimates of SF-3 and SF-6 were €3414 (95% CI: 3036–3791) and €3333 (95% CI: 2970–3696) respectively while that for the comprehensive iPCQ amounted to €3456 (95% CI: 3189–3720).

Conclusion

A SF with seven questions was developed with a high agreement with the comprehensive iPCQ. Initial clinimetric testing was satisfactory. Further assessment is recommended.