A multi-phase approach for developing a conceptual model and preliminary content for patient-reported outcome measurement in TKA patients: from a Chinese perspective
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are being used more frequently in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). By utilizing high-quality scales, surgeons can achieve a more comprehensive and accurate evaluation of the effectiveness of TKA surgery. Currently, there is no widely accepted conceptual model for TKA PROMs. The objective of this study is to fill this gap by developing a conceptual model and preliminary content for a PROM that is specifically designed for TKA patients in mainland China.
Methods
The study design consisted of three stages: (1) a targeted literature review followed by the formation of a conceptual model pool; (2) qualitative data collection involving experts and patients, leading to the development of the preliminary Chinese TKA PROM (CTP); and (3) review of the CTP by experts using the Delphi method, along with cognitive debriefing interviews with patients.
Results
64 patients and 28 experts took part in this study. The conceptual model focused on six key concepts: pain, symptom, function, quality of life, expectation, and satisfaction. To match the model, the authors developed a total of 35 items.
Conclusion
A conceptual model and preliminary content for CTP was developed with substantial participation from patients and a multidisciplinary group of experts. The integration of patient and clinical perspectives ensured a comprehensive representation of all relevant disease experiences and the focus of clinical practice. With further refinement through psychometric testing, the CTP is positioned to provide a standardized, comprehensive measure for research specific to Chinese TKA patients.
Chao Xu, Jie Wei and Liang Li have contributed equally to this work as co-first authors. Lei Shang and Jianbing Ma have contributed equally to this work as co-corresponding authors.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Currently, there is no patient-reported outcome scale specifically developed for Chinese patients who have undergone total knee arthroplasty. This study aims to address this gap by exploring the key aspects and preliminary content that should be included in a Chinese total knee arthroplasty patient-reported outcome scale. Through multiple rounds of discussions with total knee arthroplasty patients and experts, a Chinese version of the total knee arthroplasty patient-reported outcome scale has been developed, which consists of 6 dimensions (pain, symptom, function, quality of life, expectation, and satisfaction) and 35 items. This scale will serve as the basis for future reliability and validity testing. Having a total knee arthroplasty patient-reported outcome scale tailored to the Chinese population will allow for a more accurate assessment of surgical effectiveness and provide better guidance for postoperative rehabilitation in China.
Introduction
With a history spanning over 40 years, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has emerged as a highly effective treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis (KOA) [1]. This procedure has consistently demonstrated its ability to improve the quality of life by alleviating pain and enhancing long-term knee function [2, 3]. Additionally, as TKA is an elective procedure, it is important to use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to evaluate its effectiveness, going beyond traditional objective metrics [4].
PROMs offer unique advantages, such as: (1) reducing clinician biases and accurately representing the patient's health status from their perspective [5]; (2) fostering a more thorough understanding of patients' perspectives, aiding in the identification of potentially modifiable factors [6]; (3) facilitating patient follow-up, regardless of direct attendance [7]; and (4) assisting in the decision-making process for treatment interventions [8].
Currently, China has not yet developed its own PROM for TKA patients. Western PROMs are used in China, but it is challenging to apply foreign scales to Chinese patients due to cultural variations, customs, differences in disease diagnosis and treatment concepts, and socio-economic development levels between China and the West [9]. Additionally, the absence of a widely accepted PROMs conceptual model for TKA patients leads to inconsistent structures among the PROMs used in clinical practice. This lack of comparability ultimately hinders the widespread promotion and application of existing PROMs [10].
The conceptual model defines the meaning and scope of the measurement dimensions of the scale. Building a strong conceptual model is necessary to create a valid and reliable measurement instrument [11]. This study aims to develop a conceptual model and preliminary content for PROM specifically designed for TKA patients in mainland China. This endeavor will serve as the groundwork for the development of the final version of Chinese TKA PROM (CTP).
Methods
This study was designed in three stages, encompassing a targeted literature review, concept elicitation with TKA patients and related experts, and evaluation of the PROM’s content validity (Fig. 1). The patients included in this study had all undergone TKA surgery at least one year prior. The study adheres to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and ethics approval was obtained from the medical ethics committee of Honghui Hospital (No.202202021). All participants provided written informed consent.
The study involved a comprehensive search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform (Wan Fang), and VIP Chinese Journal Service Platform (VIP). To comprehensively identify psychometrically validated PROMs for TKA patients, we employed keywords from three terms: (1) patient-reported outcome measure; (2) measurement properties (including reliability, validity, internal consistency, responsiveness, measurement error, and minimal clinically important difference); and (3) TKA. The search strategy used for PubMed aligns with the research conducted by Wang et al. [10]. Eligible articles were those published as full texts in English or Chinese, specifically detailing the development or assessment of measurement properties of PROMs utilized in TKA. Exclusion criteria were applied to articles that: (1) lacked reporting on the measurement properties; (2) did not focus on TKA patients; (3) were not in full report format.
Following the elimination of duplicate articles, two reviewers (CX and LL) independently screened titles and abstracts, identifying eligible articles. Subsequently, full manuscripts were extracted and reviewed for final inclusion. Any discrepancies between the reviewers were resolved through discussion. The dimensions and items included in the PROMs that met the inclusion criteria were extracted and formed a conceptual model pool (CMP). In addition, we searched the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) database for relevant items, which offers a comprehensive overview of the behaviors of older adults in China, including physical activity, dietary habits, social engagement, and health-related behaviors. The insights gained from this stage were instrumental in developing a semi-structured interview guide.
Stage 2: February–June 2023
This semi-structured interview guide was then applied in conducting 60-min, one-on-one interviews with TKA related experts. During these in-depth interviews, the experts reviewed the CMP, providing input on wording, organization, and content; discussed the impacts of living with TKA; and considered other elements of a PROM (eg, length of the questionnaire, ideal response options). The interviews were documented through audio recordings and transcribed verbatim. Two members of the study team (CX and SXY) conducted the interviews and subsequently coded and analyzed the transcripts. Additionally, a semi-structured interview guide was developed for subsequent use in focus group sessions and individual interviews with TKA patients.
TKA patients were recruited through purposive sampling. On May 8th, 2022, an in-person patient focus group lasting 90 min was held at Honghui Hospital. Subsequent individual interviews were conducted. During these sessions, participants discussed the PROM dimensions and item pool, providing insights into the impacts of their condition on daily life. The discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two members of the study team (CX and JW) conducted coding and analysis of the transcripts, focusing on confirming and elaborating on the insights identified in interviews. Additionally, patient preferences regarding various elements of the PROM, such as the recall period and the ideal mode and setting for completing the questionnaire, were identified.
The insights gathered from these interviews were utilized to develop the preliminary CTP, along with item response options and instructions. All contents were drafted in simplified Chinese.
Stage 3: July–December 2023
This session included two rounds of the Delphi method, followed by one round of formal cognitive debriefing interviews. We followed the recommendations provided by the CREDES (Guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies) [12].
TKA Experts from multiple fields were involved in Delphi consultation, including those in joint surgery, orthopedic nursing, rehabilitation medicine, medical statistics, orthopedic medical device development, and medical psychology. The experts had to meet the following criteria: (1) extensive practical or research experience in the fields related to TKA, with a minimum of 15 years of working experience; (2) bachelor’s degree or above; (3) intermediate technical title or above; (4) motivation for this study; and (5) following the principle of informed consent.
The principal investigators (CX, JBM and LS) contacted experts by email or WeChat, distributing expert consultation questionnaires (Table 1) and reminding the expert to return them within 2 weeks. The researcher contacted experts who did not respond within 2 weeks to inquire about the progress. After the questionnaires from the first round were returned, the researchers (CX and JBM) analyzed the experts’ opinions and organized the research team discussion. Items were removed according to the criteria of mean score of the importance < 3.5 and coefficient of variation (CV) > 0.25 [13], and items were added or modified according to the experts’ feedback. Based on the results of the first round of consultation, a second round of consultation questionnaires was designed. The results of the first round were provided in the second round of questionnaires so that the experts could understand how these modifications were created. The same steps were followed to distribute and collect the questionnaires. The consultation was concluded when the experts reached a consensus. Therefore, two rounds of expert consultation were conducted with a one-month interval between them.
Table 1
Content of expert consultation questionnaire
Sections
Content
Section 1:
Survey Introduction
(1) Study overview: background, purpose, and significance of the study;
(2) Development process: the process of constructing the first draft of the dimensions and items;
(3) Expert consultation: the purpose of expert consultation, questionnaire components, expected return time, and contact information of the researchers
Section 2:
Experts’ Information and Self-evaluation
(1) Basic information of experts: including age, gender, department, years of work, highest education; technical title, and main research fields;
(2) Consensus (Cs): Self-evaluation of the expert’s familiarity with the consultation content. Scores were assigned as follows: very familiar (1.0), more familiar (0.8), generally familiar (0.5), less familiar (0.3), and unfamiliar (0.1);
(3) Criterion of Appropriateness (Ca): Self-evaluation by experts of the basis for their judgment in expressing their opinions. Scores were assigned as follows: practical experience (0.5, 0.4, 0.3), theoretical analysis (0.3, 0.2, 0.1), references (0.1, 0.1, 0.1), and intuition (0.1, 0.1, 0.1)
Section 3:
Expert assessment and recommendations for dimensions and items
(1) First draft of the dimensions and items;
(2) Reasonability of the dimensions and items was evaluated by experts using a 5-point Likert scale: Very important (5 points), Important (4 points), Fair (3 points), Not Very important (2 points), Unimportant (1 point);
(3) Modification Comments: comments from experts on any dimensions and items are invited, including adding, removing, or modifying
Then, one round of formal cognitive debriefing interviews was conducted with TKA patients recruited from Honghui Hospital. Two members of the study team (CX and XFC) conducted face-to-face interviews with each patient. The interviews followed a semi-structured interview guide specifically designed to assess the relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness of the CTP. Participants utilized the CTP through the think-aloud method, a standardized approach to cognitive debriefing that minimizes interviewer bias and offers valuable insights into participant comprehension [14]. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two members of the study team (CX and JW) coded the transcripts and identified any sections of the CTP that required revisions [15].
Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 24.0 (Chicago, IL). The significance level was set at 0.05. The normality of the data distribution was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, and it was found that all the data followed a normal distribution. The expert profile was presented using mean, standard deviation, or frequency and percentage. In stage 3, the degree of expert authority was determined through the expert authority coefficient (Cr), computed as the arithmetic mean of Cs and Ca. The degree of expert opinion concentration was evaluated using the mean importance score and CV. Additionally, the degree of coordination among expert opinions was quantified by Kendall's W coefficient.
Results
A diverse group of participants contributed to the study. Detailed professional and demographic information is presented in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2
Basic information of experts in each stage
Participant classification
Concept elicitation Interviews (N = 12)
Delphi– Round 1 (N = 28)
Delphi – Round 2
(N = 24)
Age (Mean ± SD, years)
48.2 ± 3.2
43.1 ± 6.3
42.9 ± 6.4
Sex, n (%)
Male
9 (75.0%)
21 (75.0%)
18 (75.0%)
Female
3 (25.0%)
7 (25.0%)
6 (25.0%)
Working experience (Mean ± SD, years)
24.6 ± 3.5
18.7 ± 6.6
18.8 ± 6.8
Research area, n (%)
Joint surgery
8 (66.7%)
17 (60.7%)
16 (66.7%)
Orthopedic nursing
2 (16.7%)
4 (14.3%)
4 (16.7%)
Rehabilitation medicine
1 (8.3%)
3 (10.7%)
3 (12.5%)
Medical statistics
0 (0.0%)
2 (7.1%)
0 (0.0%)
Medical device development
0 (0.0%)
1 (3.6%)
0 (0.0%)
Medical psychology
1 (8.3%)
1 (3.6%)
1 (4.2%)
Table 3
Basic information of patients in each stage
Concept Elicitation
Cognitive Debriefing
Patient Focus Group (N = 12)
Individual Interviews
(N = 32)
Patient interviews
(N = 20)
Age (Mean ± SD, years)
65.0 ± 6.0
65.1 ± 6.5
67.8 ± 4.8
Sex, n (%)
Male
3 (25.0%)
8 (25.0%)
6 (30%)
Female
9 (75.0%)
24 (75.0%)
14 (70%)
Postoperative time (M)
18.5 ± 6.7
17.8 ± 4.3
16.9 ± 4.7
Employment status
In work
3 (25%)
9 (28.1%)
4 (20%)
Be unemployed
1 (8.3%)
2 (6.3%)
2 (10%)
Retired
8 (66.7%)
21 (65.6%)
14 (70%)
Living situation
Living alone
1 (8.3%)
4 (12.5%)
2 (10%)
With spouse
7 (58.3%)
20 (62.5%)
13 (65%)
With children
4 (33.3%)
8 (25%)
5 (25%)
Education
Primary school or below
2 (16.7%)
5 (15.6%)
3 (15%)
Middle school
5 (41.7%)
12 (37.5%)
6 (30%)
High school or above
4 (33.3%)
12 (37.5%)
9 (45%)
University
1 (8.3%)
3 (9.4%)
2 (10%)
M: Months
In total, 235 articles were ultimately selected from 8,491 references (Fig. 2). Consequently, the study team identified and analyzed 57 PROMs (in 56 studies) [11, 16‐70]. Based on data extracted from the literature review, the study team developed a list of 8 dimensions and 135 items of CMP (Fig. 3).
Twelve experts participated in concept elicitation interviews. They reviewed the CMP, made suggestions for dimension and item settings. They confirmed all 8 dimensions and suggested merging “Mental & Emotional”, “Role (social & work)”, and “Quality of life” into a single category called "Quality of life". They also removed 56 items not in line with the Chinese lifestyle, such as golfing, entering and exiting bathtubs, skiing, etc.
Twelve TKA patients participated in the concept elicitation focus group, confirming the revised list of dimensions and items. Following the group discussion, 29 items deemed not highly relevant were removed at this stage.
A total of 32 TKA patients participated in individual concept elicitation interviews. The patients suggested including items that reflect the characteristics of the Chinese lifestyle, such as “Tai Chi” and “Square dancing”. As a result, 4 new items were added, 3 items were removed and 8 existing items were revised during this stage.
A 5-level Likert scale was used for response options, and a one-month duration was selected to facilitate accurate recall. Following these revisions, a preliminary CTP with 51 items was developed (Table 4).
Table 4
The degree of centralization and coordination of the importance scores of items in two rounds of Delphi expert consultation
Items
First Round
Second Round
Whether to ultimately include it in the CTP and its corresponding dimension
Standing up from a low sitting position without using the armrests
4.18 ± 0.82
0.196
4.46 ± 0.72
0.161
Yes (Function)
Get in/out of a car
4.21 ± 0.92
0.219
4.46 ± 0.59
0.132
Yes (Function)
Using public transportation a
3.64 ± 1.31
0.360
–
–
No
Mild field labor
3.75 ± 0.89
0.237
4.17 ± 0.76
0.182
Yes (Function)
Standing for a long time a
4.21 ± 1.13
0.268
–
–
No
Hill walking a
3.54 ± 1.04
0.294
–
–
No
Walking up and down an incline a
3.68 ± 0.94
0.255
–
–
No
Cross-legged sitting a
3.57 ± 1.10
0.308
–
–
No
Kneeling a
3.32 ± 0.90
0.271
–
–
No
Bending to floor
3.54 ± 0.84
0.237
3.79 ± 0.66
0.174
Yes (Function)
Going shopping a
3.46 ± 0.96
0.277
–
–
No
Rising from bed a
3.61 ± 1.03
0.285
–
–
No
Squatting to use the toilet a
3.14 ± 1.15
0.366
–
–
No
Getting on/off toilet
3.75 ± 0.70
0.187
4.00 ± 0.59
0.148
Yes (Function)
stepping to the sidea
3.54 ± 1.29
0.364
–
–
No
Turning or twisting on the kneea
3.79 ± 1.17
0.309
–
–
No
One-leg standinga
3.54 ± 1.14
0.322
–
–
No
Lower limb muscle strength traininga
3.14 ± 0.93
0.296
–
–
No
Stretchinga
2.39 ± 0.96
0.402
–
–
No
Outdoor fitness activities (Tai Chi or Square dancing)
4.36 ± 0.87
0.200
4.67 ± 0.56
0.120
Yes (Function)
Taking care of childrena
2.32 ± 1.02
0.440
–
–
No
Overall quality of life
4.11 ± 0.88
0.214
4.54 ± 0.51
0.112
Yes(Quality of life)
Sleep qualitya
2.71 ± 1.08
0.399
–
–
No
Reduce strenuous activity to avoid potential injurya
2.21 ± 0.92
0.416
–
–
No
Lack of confidence of the kneea
2.96 ± 0.84
0.284
–
–
No
Visiting friends and relatives
3.86 ± 0.71
0.184
4.25 ± 0.74
0.174
Yes(Quality of life)
Embarrassed when people see me
3.61 ± 0.69
0.191
3.96 ± 0.81
0.205
Yes(Quality of life)
Feel being a burden to close relatives a
2.46 ± 0.69
0.280
–
–
No
Anxiety or Depression
4.21 ± 0.69
0.163
4.25 ± 0.74
0.174
Yes(Quality of life)
Looking forward to relieving pain
4.82 ± 0.39
0.081
4.96 ± 0.20
0.040
Yes(Expectation)
Looking forward to carry out activities of daily living
4.61 ± 0.69
0.150
4.58 ± 0.72
0.157
Yes(Expectation)
Looking forward to perform leisure, recreational,
or sport activities
4.43 ± 0.79
0.178
4.67 ± 0.64
0.137
Yes(Expectation)
Satisfied with pain relief
4.57 ± 0.74
0.162
4.71 ± 0.55
0.117
Yes(Satisfaction)
Satisfied with the ability to resume daily activities
4.32 ± 0.86
0.199
4.50 ± 0.72
0.160
Yes(Satisfaction)
Satisfied with the ability to resume leisure, recreational,
or sport activities
4.25 ± 0.75
0.176
4.58 ± 0.65
0.142
Yes(Satisfaction)
The data is presented in the form of mean ± standard deviation. CV: Coefficient of variation. aItems deleted in the first round of Delphi correspondence
In the first round of Delphi method, 32 questionnaires were distributed and 28 were collected, resulting in a valid questionnaire collection rate of 87.5%. Out of the 28 experts, 21 (75.0%) provided 49 modification suggestions. Moving on to the second round, 28 questionnaires were distributed and 24 were collected, achieving a valid questionnaire collection rate of 85.7%. From this round, 9 experts (37.5%) contributed 20 modification suggestions. These figures reflected the experts’ interest in the study and the relatively high level of motivation.
The Ca values for the two rounds of Delphi were 0.90 ± 0.07 and 0.92 ± 0.06, while the Cs values were 0.91 ± 0.10 and 0.95 ± 0.09. The Cr values for the two rounds of Delphi were 0.91 ± 0.07 and 0.94 ± 0.06, respectively (Tables 5 and 6). Both these values were higher than 0.7, indicating that the consultation results were reliable.
Table 5
Self-evaluation by experts of the basis for their judgment
Judgement basis
First round (n = 28)
Second round (n = 24)
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
Practical experience
15
11
2
15
9
0
theoretical analysis
15
13
0
14
10
0
references
12
11
5
12
9
3
intuition
3
7
18
3
6
15
Ca value
0.90 ± 0.07
0.92 ± 0.06
The data is presented in the form of mean ± standard deviation. Ca: Criterion of appropriateness
Table 6
Self-evaluation of the expert’s familiarity with the consultation content
Familiarity
First Round (n = 28)
Second round (n = 24)
Very familiar
16
18
More familiar
12
6
Generally familiar
0
0
Less familiar
0
0
Unfamiliar
0
0
Cs Value
0.91 ± 0.10
0.95 ± 0.09
The data is presented in the form of mean ± standard deviation. Cs: Consensus
In this study, importance scores obtained from two rounds of Delphi consultation ranged from 2.21 to 4.82, and 3.79 to 4.96, respectively. The CV for the importance scores was found to be 0.08 to 0.46 in the first round and 0.04 to 0.21 in the second round (Table 4). Additionally, Kendall's W values for the two rounds of Delphi consultation were calculated to be 0.404 and 0.215, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). These results indicate consistent agreement among the experts' opinions. The CV in the second round was significantly smaller than that in the first round, suggesting that the opinions of experts tended to be more consistent.
Based on participant feedback, no dimensions needed adjustment. 22 items were deleted based on the screen criteria. Additionally, 16 items in the questionnaire were modified to enhance readability and clarity. Subsequently, the research team met to discuss and propose scoring rules for each item after the Delphi consultation.
20 patients contributed to cognitive debriefing interviews. They clearly understood all dimensions and items and were able to answer them using the provided response options. Based on their feedback, 4 items were revised to improve wording. Cognitive debriefing further confirmed the instructions were clear and that the recall period was appropriate. The patients took an average of 6.9 ± 2.4 min to complete the questionnaire. The final CTP includes 6 dimensions and 35 items (Supplemental Digital Content 1, CTP and scoring instructions). The dimension of expectation will be included in the preoperative version, while satisfaction will be included in the postoperative version.
Discussion
PROMs enhance patient-clinician interactions by fostering open dialogue, emotional expression, and a balanced distribution of power during medical visits. Orthopedic surgeons now recognize that a critical outcome measure for TKA lies in discernible changes in PROMs [10]. By adopting high-quality PROMs, we can improve the accuracy of efficacy evaluations, provide targeted guidance for patient rehabilitation, and facilitate the early detection and intervention of abnormal functional states in TKA patients.
It is important to customize the global standard to meet specific conditions within each country, with addressing cross-cultural differences being a fundamental aspect of this challenge [71]. The TKA patient-specific PROM developed with a Western cultural background may not be perfectly suitable for Chinese individuals [72]. The disparities between Eastern and Western cultures regarding diet, health beliefs, behavioral habits, and economic environments significantly influence patients' demands for TKA, as well as their expectations, evaluations of surgical efficacy, and rehabilitation strategies [73, 74]. Consequently, there is a growing need for localized PROMs. Currently, no PROM is specifically designed for Chinese patients undergoing TKA. Therefore, it is crucial to develop a CTP that considers the social and cultural background of China, incorporates psychological factors, and can be easily used in Chinese medical institutions. In this study, we conducted a series of in-depth interviews and used the Delphi method to develop a conceptual model and preliminary content for the CTP. We gathered perspectives from both clinicians and patients, which laid a strong foundation for the future development of the formal version of the CTP.
Currently, TKA surgery is experiencing the fastest growth among individuals under 60 years old in Western countries. Younger patients often have higher expectations for their sports-related functions, which is also evident in the new Knee Society Scoring System and other functional evaluation scales [75]. However, Noble et al. emphasized tailoring the functional evaluation items to the specific needs of each population [49]. In this regard, the functional evaluation dimension of the CTP scale is designed to fully reflect the unique characteristics of Chinese patients. In China, elderly patients typically engage in activities like square dancing, Tai Chi, and aerobics [76]. However, activities such as golf, yoga, road cycling, and other Western exercises are not commonly practiced in China. This disparity is also reflected in the functional dimension of the CTP. In addition, the selection of assessment items specifically related to surgery is crucial for ensuring that evaluations are relevant, accurate, and applicable to surgical populations. Utilizing appropriate items ensures that assessments meaningfully reflect the intended outcomes of the surgery. This targeted approach ultimately supports better rehabilitation strategies and improves patient-centered care in orthopedic settings [77].
Chinese patients tend to be older and have more severe conditions when undergoing TKA surgery compared to patients in Western countries [78]. In economically disadvantaged areas, TKA treatment is often chosen as a last resort when the condition becomes unbearable. Consequently, Chinese patients primarily focus on pain relief and restoring basic daily life activities and sports functions, rather than high-intensity sports [73]. After conducting multiple rounds of interviews and surveys, this study identified 13 functional items that are crucial for the daily lives of Chinese patients.
Most TKA patients in China are over 60 years old, and a significant proportion of them have not received higher education [79]. In this study, fewer than 10% of the patients had received a university education. Particularly in economically disadvantaged areas of the central and western regions, many patients struggle to understand the content of the PROM due to their low level of education [72]. Therefore, when developing the scale, we revised item language multiple times based on patients' and experts' feedback to ensure clarity. Additionally, the design of the scale emphasizes the need to simplify the items as much as possible. The time it takes to fill in the form directly impacts the quality and completion rate of the scale [80]. Hence, by reducing the time needed to complete the form, we can improve the accuracy of the gathered information, lessen the burden on patients, alleviate clinicians' workload, and promote the widespread use of the scale in China [80]. In this study, the average time it took TKA patients to complete the CTP scale was 6.9 min, which was significantly shorter than the previous scale [10]. This result indicates that the scale's dimensions and item settings are appropriate.
In CTP, the functional dimension has a maximum score of 52 points, the pain dimension has 36 points, the symptom dimension has 18 points, the QOL dimension has 16 points, and both expectation and satisfaction have 12 points each. The weight of each dimension on the scale shows that function and pain carry the most significance, emphasizing their essential role for TKA patients, which aligns with previous research [57]. The validity of this allocation will be confirmed in subsequent psychological tests.
This study emphasizes the importance of integrating patient input using recommended qualitative research methods [81]. The approach used, concept elicitation, involves conducting interviews with patients to gather detailed descriptions of symptoms, impacts, and other aspects of their condition. By incorporating extensive patient input, the study ensures that the patient's voice and experience are central to the development of the CTP. Through multiple rounds of feedback from patients, the language used in the scale items has been improved to be more friendly, easily understood, and accepted by Chinese patients.
In addition to incorporating the patient voice, the study team actively sought input from a diverse group of experts, deliberately ensuring the inclusion of opinions from various professions. During these discussions, psychologists noted that Chinese people have limited involvement in community activities. Consequently, they proposed eliminating social activity-related items from the QOL dimension. However, they also emphasized the considerable significance of family-based social activities in Chinese society, which comprise the majority of social interactions. Therefore, it would be more suitable to incorporate an item specifically for visiting relatives and friends, as this effectively represents the quality and necessity of social interaction in Chinese culture.
Given that the scale construction needs to be tested for reliability, validity, and norms, this study will proceed with large clinical sample and multi-center patient interviews. This will allow for debugging and improving the scale, as well as statistically screening the items to ensure their suitability for clinical practice in China.
Conclusion
The conceptual model and preliminary content for CTP were developed through a secondary analysis of published literature and a series of qualitative and Delphi interviews. The CTP describes the perioperative concerns of Chinese TKA patients and experts. This work is a significant step towards creating a CTP specifically tailored for Chinese TKA patients.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 82173627), Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province (No. 2023-YBSF-464) and Cultivation Project for General Project of Xi’an Health Commission (No. 2024ms10). We thank all the patients and experts who participated in the study and the individuals who helped with preparing the paper.
Declarations
Conflict of interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethical approval
This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the medical ethics committee of Honghui Hospital (Date: 02.25.2022; No:202202021).
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
A multi-phase approach for developing a conceptual model and preliminary content for patient-reported outcome measurement in TKA patients: from a Chinese perspective
Auteurs
Chao Xu
Jie Wei
Liang Li
Shuxin Yao
Xiaofeng Chang
Jianbing Ma
Lei Shang
Karasavvidis, T., Pagan, M. C., Haddad, F. S., Hirschmann, M. T., Pagnano, M. W., & Vigdorchik, J. M. (2023). Current concepts in alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty,38(7 Suppl 2), S29–S37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2023.01.060CrossRefPubMed
2.
Fortier, L. M., Rockov, Z. A., Chen, A. F., & Rajaee, S. S. (2021). Activity recommendations after total hip and total knee arthroplasty. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,103(5), 446–455. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.00983CrossRef
3.
Lavand’Homme, P. M., Kehlet, H., Rawal, N., & Joshi, G. P. (2022). Pain management after total knee arthroplasty: Procedure specific postoperative pain management recommendations. European Journal of Anaesthesiology,39(9), 743–757. https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000001691CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Buus, A., Udsen, F. W., Laugesen, B., El-Galaly, A., Laursen, M., & Hejlesen, O. K. (2022). Patient-reported outcomes for function and pain in total knee arthroplasty patients. Nursing Research,71(5), E39–E47. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000602CrossRefPubMed
5.
Gagnier, J. J., Mullins, M., Huang, H., Marinac-Dabic, D., Ghambaryan, A., Eloff, B., et al. (2017). A systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty,32(5), 1688–1697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.052CrossRefPubMed
6.
Solberg, L. I., Chrenka, E., Asche, S. E., Johnson, P. G., Ziegenfuss, J. Y., Horst, P. K., et al. (2022). Adjusting for variation in patient-reported outcome measures is needed to improve care after total knee arthroplasty. Journal of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons,30(2), e164–e172. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-20-01371CrossRef
7.
Ayers, D. C. (2017). Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in total knee arthroplasty. Journal of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons,25(Suppl 1), S48–S50. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00631CrossRef
Wan, D., Cao, S., Li, X., Zan, Q., Yao, S., Ma, J., et al. (2024). Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the chinese version of the high activity arthroplasty score. Patient Related Outcome Measures,15, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S451710CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Lewis, S., Price, M., Dwyer, K. A., O’Brien, S., Heekin, R. D., Yates, P. J., et al. (2014). Development of a scale to assess performance following primary total knee arthroplasty. Value Health,17(4), 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.006CrossRefPubMed
12.
Jünger, S., Payne, S. A., Brine, J., Radbruch, L., & Brearley, S. G. (2017). Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliative Medicine,31(8), 684–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216317690685CrossRefPubMed
13.
Yang, L., Wu, B. Y., Wang, C. F., Li, H. W., Bian, W. W., & Ruan, H. (2023). Indicators and medical tests to identify lower limb swelling causes after total knee arthroplasty: A Delphi study with multidisciplinary experts. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research,18(1), 573. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-03980-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
O’Connor, M., Hsu, K., Broderick, L., McCausland, K. L., LaGasse, K., Rebello, S., et al. (2023). The transthyretin amyloidosis - quality of life (ATTR-QOL) questionnaire: Development of a conceptual model and disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure. Patient Related Outcome Measures,14, 213–222. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S411721CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Lysholm, J., & Gillquist, J. (1982). Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. American Journal of Sports Medicine,10(3), 150–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/036354658201000306CrossRefPubMed
17.
Amstutz, H. C., Thomas, B. J., Jinnah, R., Kim, W., Grogan, T., & Yale, C. (1984). Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip. A comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. The Bone and Joint Journal,66(2), 228–241.
18.
Tegner, Y., & Lysholm, J. (1985). Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research,198, 43–49.CrossRef
19.
Bellamy, N., & Buchanan, W. W. (1986). A preliminary evaluation of the dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Clinical Rheumatology,5(2), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02032362CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lequesne, M. G., Mery, C., Samson, M., & Gerard, P. (1987). Indexes of severity for osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Validation–value in comparison with other assessment tests. Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology. Supplement,65, 85–89. https://doi.org/10.3109/03009748709102182CrossRefPubMed
Berg, K. (1989). Measuring balance in the elderly: Preliminary development of an instrument. Physiotherapy Canada,41(6), 304–311.CrossRef
23.
Washburn, R. A., Smith, K. W., Jette, A. M., & Janney, C. A. (1993). The physical activity scale for the elderly (PASE): Development and evaluation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,46(2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90053-4CrossRefPubMed
Dipietro, L., Caspersen, C. J., Ostfeld, A. M., & Nadel, E. R. (1993). A survey for assessing physical activity among older adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,25(5), 628–642.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Sullivan, M. J. L., Bishop, S. R., & Pivik, J. (1995). The pain catastrophizing scale: Development and validation. Psychological Assessment,7(4), 524–532.CrossRef
Roos, E. M., Roos, H. P., Lohmander, L. S., Ekdahl, C., & Beynnon, B. D. (1998). Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)–development of a self-administered outcome measure. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy,28(2), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88CrossRefPubMed
29.
Irrgang, J. J., Snyder-Mackler, L., Wainner, R. S., Fu, F. H., & Harner, C. D. (1998). Development of a patient-reported measure of function of the knee. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,80(8), 1132–1145. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199808000-00006CrossRef
30.
Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Murray, D., & Carr, A. (1998). Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,80(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.80b1.7859CrossRef
Binkley, J. M., Stratford, P. W., Lott, S. A., & Riddle, D. L. (1999). The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): Scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Physical Therapy,79(4), 371–383.PubMed
33.
Mancuso, C. A., Sculco, T. P., Wickiewicz, T. L., Jones, E. C., Robbins, L., Warren, R. F., et al. (2001). Patients’ expectations of knee surgery. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,83(7), 1005–1012. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200107000-00005CrossRef
34.
Irrgang, J. J., Anderson, A. F., Boland, A. L., Harner, C. D., Kurosaka, M., Neyret, P., et al. (2001). Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. American Journal of Sports Medicine,29(5), 600–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465010290051301CrossRefPubMed
35.
Waldrop, D., Lightsey, O. R., Jr., Ethington, C. A., Woemmel, C. A., & Coke, A. L. (2001). Self-efficacy, optimism, health competence, and recovery from orthopedic surgery. Journal of Counseling Psychology,48(2), 233–238.CrossRef
36.
Sangha, O., Stucki, G., Liang, M. H., Fossel, A. H., & Katz, J. N. (2003). The self-administered comorbidity questionnaire: A new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. Arthritis and Rheumatism,49(2), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.10993CrossRefPubMed
37.
Mercer, S. W., Maxwell, M., Heaney, D., & Watt, G. C. (2004). The consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure: Development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure. Family Practice,21(6), 699–705. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmh621CrossRefPubMed
38.
Johanson, N. A., Liang, M. H., Daltroy, L., Rudicel, S., & Richmond, J. (2004). American academy of orthopaedic surgeons lower limb outcomes assessment instruments. Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,86(5), 902–909. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200405000-00003CrossRef
39.
Saleh, K. J., Mulhall, K. J., Bershadsky, B., Ghomrawi, H. M., White, L. E., Buyea, C. M., et al. (2005). Development and validation of a lower-extremity activity scale. Use for patients treated with revision total knee arthroplasty. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,87(9), 1985–1994. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.D.02564CrossRef
40.
Chou, C. Y., Chien, C. W., Hsueh, I. P., Sheu, C. F., Wang, C. H., & Hsieh, C. L. (2006). Developing a short form of the berg balance scale for people with stroke. Physical Therapy,86(2), 195–204.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Rat, A. C., Pouchot, J., Coste, J., Baumann, C., Spitz, E., Retel-Rude, N., et al. (2006). Development and testing of a specific quality-of-life questionnaire for knee and hip osteoarthritis: OAKHQOL (OsteoArthritis of Knee Hip Quality Of Life). Joint, Bone, Spine,73(6), 697–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2006.01.027CrossRefPubMed
42.
Webster, K. E., Feller, J. A., & Lambros, C. (2008). Development and preliminary validation of a scale to measure the psychological impact of returning to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Physical Therapy in Sport,9(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2007.09.003CrossRefPubMed
Hawker, G. A., Davis, A. M., French, M. R., Cibere, J., Jordan, J. M., March, L., et al. (2008). Development and preliminary psychometric testing of a new OA pain measure–an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage,16(4), 409–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.015CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Perruccio, A. V., Stefan, L. L., Canizares, M., Tennant, A., Hawker, G. A., Conaghan, P. G., et al. (2008). The development of a short measure of physical function for knee OA KOOS-physical function shortform (KOOS-PS) - an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage,16(5), 542–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.014CrossRefPubMed
46.
Garratt, A. M., Brealey, S., Robling, M., Atwell, C., Russell, I., Gillespie, W., et al. (2008). Development of the knee quality of life (KQoL-26) 26-item questionnaire: Data quality, reliability, validity and responsiveness. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,6, 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-6-48CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Talbot, S., Hooper, G., Stokes, A., & Zordan, R. (2010). Use of a new high-activity arthroplasty score to assess function of young patients with total hip or knee arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty,25(2), 268–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.09.019CrossRefPubMed
48.
Domzalski, T., Cook, C., Attarian, D. E., Kelley, S. S., Bolognesi, M. P., & Vail, T. P. (2010). Activity scale for arthroplasty patients after total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty,25(1), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.11.009CrossRefPubMed
49.
Noble, P. C., Scuderi, G. R., Brekke, A. C., Sikorskii, A., Benjamin, J. B., Lonner, J. H., et al. (2012). Development of a new Knee Society scoring system. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research,470(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2152-zCrossRefPubMed
50.
Sepucha, K. R., Stacey, D., Clay, C. F., Chang, Y., Cosenza, C., Dervin, G., et al. (2011). Decision quality instrument for treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis: A psychometric evaluation. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders,12, 149. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-149CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Behrend, H., Giesinger, K., Giesinger, J. M., & Kuster, M. S. (2012). The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: Validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. Journal of Arthroplasty,27(3), 430–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.035CrossRefPubMed
52.
Mayer, T. G., Neblett, R., Cohen, H., Howard, K. J., Choi, Y. H., Williams, M. J., et al. (2012). The development and psychometric validation of the central sensitization inventory. Pain Practice,12(4), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-2500.2011.00493.xCrossRefPubMed
53.
Peters, L. L., Boter, H., Buskens, E., & Slaets, J. P. (2012). Measurement properties of the Groningen Frailty Indicator in home-dwelling and institutionalized elderly people. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association,13(6), 546–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2012.04.007CrossRefPubMed
54.
Na, S. E., Ha, C. W., & Lee, C. H. (2012). A new high-flexion knee scoring system to eliminate the ceiling effect. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research,470(2), 584–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2203-5CrossRefPubMed
55.
Kim, J. G., Ha, J. K., Han, S. B., Kim, T. K., & Lee, M. C. (2013). Development and validation of a new evaluation system for patients with a floor-based lifestyle: The Korean knee score. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research,471(5), 1539–1547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2726-4CrossRefPubMed
56.
Benhamou, M., Boutron, I., Dalichampt, M., Baron, G., Alami, S., Rannou, F., et al. (2013). Elaboration and validation of a questionnaire assessing patient expectations about management of knee osteoarthritis by their physicians: The knee osteoarthritis expectations questionnaire. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases,72(4), 552–559. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-201206CrossRefPubMed
57.
Mancuso, C. A., Ranawat, A. S., Meftah, M., Koob, T. W., & Ranawat, C. S. (2012). Properties of the patient administered questionnaires: New scales measuring physical and psychological symptoms of hip and knee disorders. Journal of Arthroplasty,27(4), 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.07.014CrossRefPubMed
58.
Levinger, P., Diamond, N. T., Menz, H. B., Wee, E., Margelis, S., Stewart, A. G., et al. (2016). Development and validation of a questionnaire assessing discrepancy between patients’ pre-surgery expectations and abilities and post-surgical outcomes following knee replacement surgery. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy,24(10), 3359–3368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3432-4CrossRefPubMed
59.
Kievit, A. J., Kuijer, P. P., Kievit, R. A., Sierevelt, I. N., Blankevoort, L., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. (2014). A reliable, valid and responsive questionnaire to score the impact of knee complaints on work following total knee arthroplasty: The WORQ. Journal of Arthroplasty,29(6), 1169–1175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.01.016CrossRefPubMed
60.
Dawson, J., Beard, D. J., McKibbin, H., Harris, K., Jenkinson, C., & Price, A. J. (2014). Development of a patient-reported outcome measure of activity and participation (the OKS-APQ) to supplement the Oxford knee score. The Bone and Joint Journal,96-B(3), 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B3.32845CrossRefPubMed
61.
Huber, E. O., Bastiaenen, C. H., Bischoff-Ferrari, H. A., Meichtry, A., & de Bie, R. A. (2015). Development of the knee osteoarthritis patient education questionnaire: A new measure for evaluating preoperative patient education programmes for patients undergoing total knee replacement. Swiss Medical Weekly,145, w14210. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2015.14210CrossRefPubMed
62.
Scuderi, G. R., Sikorskii, A., Bourne, R. B., Lonner, J. H., Benjamin, J. B., & Noble, P. C. (2016). The knee society short form reduces respondent burden in the assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research,474(1), 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4370-2CrossRefPubMed
63.
Daut, R. L., Cleeland, C. S., & Flanery, R. C. (1983). Development of the wisconsin brief pain questionnaire to assess pain in cancer and other diseases. Pain,17(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(83)90143-4CrossRefPubMed
64.
Impellizzeri, F. M., Leunig, M., Preiss, S., Guggi, T., & Mannion, A. F. (2017). The use of the core outcome measures index (COMI) in patients undergoing total knee replacement. The Knee,24(2), 372–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2016.11.016CrossRefPubMed
65.
Lyman, S., Lee, Y. Y., Franklin, P. D., Li, W., Cross, M. B., & Padgett, D. E. (2016). Validation of the KOOS, JR: A short-form knee arthroplasty outcomes survey. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research,474(6), 1461–1471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4719-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
66.
Dinjens, R. N., Grimm, B., Heyligers, I. C., & Senden, R. (2016). Adjustments in 2011 KSS increase the clinical suitability. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica,82(1), 43–51.PubMed
67.
Gandek, B., Roos, E. M., Franklin, P. D., & Ware, J. J. (2019). Item selection for 12-item short forms of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS-12) and hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS-12). Osteoarthritis Cartilage,27(5), 746–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2018.11.011CrossRefPubMed
Huber, E. O., Boger, A., Meichtry, A., & Bastiaenen, C. H. (2020). Validation of the 7-item knee replacement patient education questionnaire (KR-PEQ-7), based on the 16-item knee osteoarthritis patient education questionnaire (KOPEQ). BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders,21(1), 468. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03476-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
70.
Strickland, L. H., Murray, D. W., Pandit, H. G., & Jenkinson, C. (2020). Development of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and change measure for use in early recovery following hip or knee replacement. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes,4(1), 91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-00262-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
71.
Akai, M., Doi, T., Fujino, K., Iwaya, T., Kurosawa, H., & Nasu, T. (2005). An outcome measure for Japanese people with knee osteoarthritis. Journal of Rheumatology,32(8), 1524–1532.PubMed
72.
Xu, C., Yao, S., Wei, W., Zhang, H., Ma, J., & Shang, L. (2023). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation for central sensitization inventory: Based on Chinese patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research,18(1), 960. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04375-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
73.
Yang, L., Yang, Z., Li, H., Xu, Y., Bian, W., & Ruan, H. (2023). Exploring expectations of Chinese patients for total knee arthroplasty: Once the medicine is taken, the symptoms vanish. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders,24(1), 159. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06251-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
74.
Barrack, R., Ruh, E., Chen, J., Lombardi, A., Berend, K., Parvizi, J., Della, V., Hamilton, W., & Nunley, R. (2014). Impact of socioeconomic factors on outcome of total knee arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research,472(1), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3002-yCrossRefPubMed
75.
Perez, B., Koressel, J., Cohen, J. S., Kirchner, G. J., Kerbel, Y. E., & Lee, G. C. (2023). Why and what happens to patients younger than 60 years who need revision total knee arthroplasty? Journal of Arthroplasty,38(11), 2404–2409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2023.05.014CrossRefPubMed
76.
Yang, S., Ye, S., & Li, H. (2022). Comparison of senior leisure activities in China and the United States from the perspective of cultural differences. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing,2022(1), 8430490.
77.
Rivera, R., Karasavvidis, T., Pagan, C., Haffner, R., Ast, M., Vigdorchik, J., & Debbi, E. (2024). Functional assessment in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. The Bone and Joint Journal,106-B(8), 764–774. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.106B8.BJJ-2024-0142.R1CrossRefPubMed
78.
Sun, W., Yuwen, P., Yang, X., Chen, W., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Changes in epidemiological characteristics of knee arthroplasty in eastern, northern and central China between 2011 and 2020. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research,18(1), 104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-03600-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
79.
Wang, H. Y., Wang, Y. H., Luo, Z. Y., Wang, D., & Zhou, Z. K. (2022). Educational attainment affects the early rehabilitation of total knee arthroplasty in Southwest China. Orthopaedic Surgery,14(2), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12807CrossRefPubMed
Rizio, A. A., Broderick, L. E., White, M. K., & Quock, T. P. (2020). Content validation of the ATTR amyloidosis patient symptom survey: findings from patient and clinician cognitive debriefing interviews. Patient Related Outcome Measures,11, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S264034CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral