Skip to content

Validated repeatability of patient-reported outcome measures following primary total hip replacement: a mode of delivery comparison study with randomized sequencing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)628-633
Number of pages6
JournalActa Orthopaedica
Issue number6
Early online date19 Nov 2018
DateAccepted/In press - 19 Aug 2018
DateE-pub ahead of print - 19 Nov 2018
DatePublished (current) - Dec 2018


Background and purpose
Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used better to understand outcomes after total hip replacement (THR). These are administered in different settings using a variety of methods. We investigated whether the mode of delivery of commonly used PROMs affects the reported scores, 1 year after THR.
Patients and methods
A prospective test-retest mode comparison study with randomised sequence was done in 66 patients who had undergone primary THR. PROMs were administered by 4 modes: self-administration, face-to-face interview, telephone interview and postal questionnaire. PROMs included: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), EQ5D-3L (EQ5D) and Self-Administered Patient Satisfaction Scale (SAPS). Linear regression was used to estimate relationships between the mean scores for PROMs by mode. Individual paired differences by mode were calculated, relationships between modes were identified and results adjusted by time delay and participant age.
There was no statistically significant difference between the mean PROM scores recorded for each mode of delivery for each score. Statistically significant differences in the individual paired differences were detected between modes for the WOMAC stiffness subscale, OHS, EQ5D and SAPS. OHS difference in individual paired means between face-to-face and telephone interview exceeded the minimally clinically important difference.
PROMs mode of administration can affect the recorded results. Modes should not be mixed and may not be comparable between studies. It should not be assumed that different modes will obtain the same results and where not already established, this should be checked by researchers before use.

    Structured keywords

  • Centre for Surgical Research

Download statistics

No data available



  • Full-text PDF (final published version)

    Rights statement: This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Taylor & Francis at . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Final published version, 599 KB, PDF document

    Licence: CC BY-NC


View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups