Skip to main content

Preoperative patient activation is predictive of improvements in patient-reported outcomes following minimally invasive lumbar decompression

European Spine Journal volume 29, pages 2222–2230 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To determine whether there is an association between preoperative 10-Item Patient Activation Measure (PAM-10) scores and clinical outcomes following MIS LD.

Methods

Patients undergoing a primary MIS LD were retrospectively reviewed and stratified according to their preoperative PAM-10 scores: “low PAM,” “moderate PAM,” and “high PAM.” Preoperative PAM score cohorts were tested for improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 12-Item Short-Form Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back and leg pain using multivariate linear regression.

Results

Eighty-nine patients were included: 29 had a low PAM score, 32 had a moderate PAM score, and 28 had a high PAM score. Cohorts experienced similar preoperative VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, ODI, and SF-12 PCS. Patients with low PAM scores experienced a trend of higher pain scores throughout 6 months with VAS back pain being significant at 3 months and VAS leg pain being significant at 6-week and 3-month follow-up. Patients with lower PAM scores experienced a worse improvement in ODI at 6-week, 3-month, and 6-month timepoints. Lastly, patients with lower PAM scores demonstrated less improvement in SF-12 PCS at 3-month and 6-month follow-up.

Conclusions

Lower preoperative PAM scores were associated with worse improvement in clinical outcomes following MIS LD. Patients with lower PAM scores had diminished improvement in long-term patient-reported outcomes including ODI, SF-12, and VAS back and leg pain. Our investigation suggests that preoperative PAM assessments may be an effective tool to predict postoperative outcomes following MIS LD.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Skolasky RL, Mackenzie EJ, Wegener ST, Riley LH (2011) Patient activation and functional recovery in persons undergoing spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1665–1671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Skolasky RL, Mackenzie EJ, Wegener ST, Riley LH 3rd (2008) Patient activation and adherence to physical therapy in persons undergoing spine surgery. Spine 33:E784–E791. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818027f1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Skolasky RL, Mackenzie EJ, Riley LH 3rd, Wegener ST (2009) Psychometric properties of the patient activation measure among individuals presenting for elective lumbar spine surgery. Qual Life Res 18:1357–1366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9549-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Block AR (2016) Demoralization, patient activation, and the outcome of spine surgery. Healthcare (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare4010011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Mahoney ER, Tusler M (2004) Development of the patient activation measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res 39:1005–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hibbard JH, Tusler M (2007) Assessing activation stage and employing a “next steps” approach to supporting patient self-management. J Ambul Care Manag 30:2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mosen DM, Schmittdiel J, Hibbard J et al (2007) Is patient activation associated with outcomes of care for adults with chronic conditions? J Ambul Care Manag 30:21–29. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004479-200701000-00005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stockard J, Tusler M (2005) Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure. Health Serv Res 40:1918–1930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00438.x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Jung C, Padman R (2015) Disruptive digital innovation in healthcare delivery: the case for patient portals and online clinical consultations. In: Agarwal R, Selen W, Roos G, Green R (eds) The handbook of service innovation. Springer, London, pp 297–318

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Weingart SN, Rind D, Tofias Z, Sands DZ (2006) Who uses the patient internet portal? The Patient Site experience. J Am Med Inform Assoc 13:91–95. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1833

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Zarcadoolas C, Vaughon WL, Czaja SJ et al (2013) Consumers’ perceptions of patient-accessible electronic medical records. J Med Internet Res 15:e168. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2507

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Hibbard JH, Greene J, Overton V (2013) Patients with lower activation associated with higher costs; delivery systems should know their patients’“scores”. Health Aff 32:216–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hassol A, Walker JM, Kidder D et al (2004) Patient experiences and attitudes about access to a patient electronic health care record and linked web messaging. J Am Med Inform Assoc 11:505–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Peters AE, Keeley EC (2017) Patient engagement following acute myocardial infarction and its influence on outcomes. Am J Cardiol 120:1467–1471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.07.037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Crandall KJ, Jason Crandall K, Western Kentucky University Center for Applied Science in Health and Aging, et al (2019) Assessing the impact of a game-centered mobile app on community-dwelling older adults’ health activation. OBM Integr Complement Med. 4:1

  16. Yun PS, MacDonald CL, Orne J et al (2020) A novel surgical patient engagement model: a qualitative study of postoperative patients. J Surg Res 248:82–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.11.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tecson KM, Bass K, Felius J et al (2019) Patient “activation” of patients referred for advanced heart failure therapy. Am J Cardiol 123:627–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.11.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hibbard JH (2017) Assessing measurement properties of the PAM 10 and 13. Insignia Health website. https://s3.amazonaws.com/insigniahealth.com-assets/Comparing-PAM-10-to-PAM-13.pdf?mtime=20191206162413. Accessed 27 Apr 2020

  19. Hibbard J (2017) Patient activation and health literacy: what’s the difference? How do each contribute to health outcomes. Stud Health Technol Inform 240:251–262

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Howard JS, Toonstra JL, Meade AR et al (2016) Feasibility of conducting a web-based survey of patient-reported outcomes and rehabilitation progress. Digit Health 2:2055207616644844. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207616644844

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Schamber EM, Takemoto SK, Chenok KE, Bozic KJ (2013) Barriers to completion of patient reported outcome measures. J Arthroplast 28:1449–1453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.06.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Block AR (2016) Demoralization, patient activation, and the outcome of spine surgery. Healthcare (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare4010011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Marshall R, Beach MC, Saha S et al (2013) Patient activation and improved outcomes in HIV-infected patients. J Gen Intern Med 28:668–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2307-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Saft HL, Kilaru S, Moore E et al (2008) The impact of a patient activation measure on asthma outcomes: a pilot study. Chest 134:2S. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.134.4_MeetingAbstracts.s2004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rogvi S, Tapager I, Almdal TP et al (2012) Patient factors and glycaemic control–associations and explanatory power. Diabet Med 29:e382–e389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03703.x

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Block AR, Marek RJ, Ben-Porath YS, Kukal D (2017) Associations between pre-implant psychosocial factors and spinal cord stimulation outcome: evaluation using the MMPI-2-RF. Assessment 24:60–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115601518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Marek RJ, Block AR, Ben-Porath YS (2015) The minnesota multiphasic personality inventory-2-restructured form (MMPI-2-RF): incremental validity in predicting early postoperative outcomes in spine surgery candidates. Psychol Assess 27:114–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Edwards RR, Klick B, Buenaver L et al (2007) Symptoms of distress as prospective predictors of pain-related sciatica treatment outcomes. Pain 130:47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2006.10.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Trief PM, Grant W, Fredrickson B (2000) A prospective study of psychological predictors of lumbar surgery outcome. Spine 25:2616–2621. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200010150-00012

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Voorhies RM, Jiang X, Thomas N (2007) Predicting outcome in the surgical treatment of lumbar radiculopathy using the Pain Drawing Score, McGill Short Form Pain Questionnaire, and risk factors including psychosocial issues and axial joint pain. Spine J 7:516–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chaichana KL, Mukherjee D, Adogwa O et al (2011) Correlation of preoperative depression and somatic perception scales with postoperative disability and quality of life after lumbar discectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 14:261–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Basques BA, Varthi AG, Golinvaux NS et al (2014) Patient characteristics associated with increased postoperative length of stay and readmission after elective laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 39:833–840. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000276

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Rihn JA, Hilibrand AS, Zhao W et al (2015) Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis in the octogenarian population: analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) data. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:177–185. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00313

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Andrawis J, Akhavan S, Chan V et al (2015) Higher preoperative patient activation associated with better patient-reported outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:2688–2697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4247-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Gruber JS, Hageman M, Neuhaus V et al (2014) Patient activation and disability in upper extremity illness. J Hand Surg Am 39:1378–1383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.03.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Remmers C, Hibbard J, Mosen DM et al (2009) Is patient activation associated with future health outcomes and healthcare utilization among patients with diabetes? J Ambul Care Manag 32:320–327. https://doi.org/10.1097/JAC.0b013e3181ba6e77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Eastwood D, Manson N, Bigney E et al (2019) Improving postoperative patient reported benefits and satisfaction following spinal fusion with a single preoperative education session. Spine J 19:840–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.11.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Parai C, Hägg O, Lind B, Brisby H (2019) ISSLS prize in clinical science 2020: the reliability and interpretability of score change in lumbar spine research. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06222-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hibbard JH, Cunningham PJ (2008) How engaged are consumers in their health and health care, and why does it matter? Research Gate website. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Judith_Hibbard/publication/23411858_How_Engaged_Are_Consumers_in_Their_Health_and_Health_Care_and_Why_Does_It_Matter/links/0912f50b4c6c464b19000000/How-Engaged-Are-Consumers-in-Their-Health-and-Health-Care-and-Why-Does-It-Matter.pdf. Accessed 27 Apr 2020

  40. Linden A (2015) Estimating measurement error of the patient activation measure for respondents with partially missing data. Biomed Res Int 2015:270168. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/270168

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from any commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison St. Suite #300, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Nathaniel W. Jenkins, James M. Parrish, Shruthi Mohan, Cara E. Geoghegan, Caroline N. Jadczak, Nadia M. Hrynewycz & Kern Singh

Authors
  1. Nathaniel W. Jenkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James M. Parrish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shruthi Mohan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cara E. Geoghegan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caroline N. Jadczak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nadia M. Hrynewycz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kern Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kern Singh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the article and its content were composed in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

IRB Approval: ORA #14051301.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jenkins, N.W., Parrish, J.M., Mohan, S. et al. Preoperative patient activation is predictive of improvements in patient-reported outcomes following minimally invasive lumbar decompression. Eur Spine J 29, 2222–2230 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06512-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06512-6

Keywords

  • 10-Item Patient Activation Measure
  • PAM-10
  • Clinical outcomes
  • Minimally invasive lumbar decompression
  • MIS LD