Performance of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire in hand osteoarthritis. Issue 12 (December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kroon, F.P.B.; Boersma, A.; Boonen, A.; van Beest, S.; Damman, W.; van der Heijde, D.; Rosendaal, F.R.; Kloppenburg, M.
• Is Part Of: Osteoarthritis and cartilage. Volume 26:Issue 12(2018)
• Page Start: 1627
• Page End: 1635
• Publication Date: 2018-12
• Subjects: Hand -- Osteoarthritis -- Outcomes research; Osteoarthritis -- Periodicals; Cartilage -- Periodicals; Osteoarthritis -- Periodicals; Cartilage -- Periodicals; Arthrose -- Périodiques; Articulations -- Maladies -- Périodiques; 616.7223005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2018.07.018
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1063-4584

Abstract

Summary: Objective: To investigate the performance of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) in hand osteoarthritis (OA) by evaluating truth, discrimination and feasibility. Design: Symptomatic hand OA patients from the Hand Osteoarthritis in Secondary Care (HOSTAS) cohort completed questionnaires (demographics, MHQ, Australian/Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index [AUSCAN], Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis [FIHOA] and visual analogue scale [VAS] pain) at baseline ( n = 383), 1- and 2-year follow-up ( n = 312, n = 293). Anchor questions at follow-up assessed whether pain/function levels were (un)acceptable and had changed compared to baseline. Correlations between MHQ and other pain/function questionnaires were calculated. Validity of unique MHQ domains (work performance, aesthetics, satisfaction), discrimination across disease stages, and responsiveness were assessed by categorizing patients by external anchors (employment, joint deformities, erosions, and anchor questions). Between-group differences were assessed with linear regression, probability plots and comparison of medians. Results: MHQ pain and function subscales correlated moderately-to-good with other instruments (rs 0.63–0.81). Work performance scores were worse in patients with reduced working capacity than in employed patients. Aesthetics scores were worse in patients with more deformities. Patients with unacceptable complaints had worse satisfaction scores. All pain/function instruments discriminated between patients with acceptable vs unacceptable pain/function, while only MHQ activities of daily living (ADL), FIHOA, and MHQ aesthetics could discriminate between erosive and non-erosive disease. MHQ and AUSCAN were most responsive. Conclusions: MHQ has several unique aspects and advantages justifying its use in hand OA, including the unique assessment of work performance, aesthetics, and satisfaction. However, MHQ, AUSCAN and FIHOA appear to measure different aspects of pain and function.