The Impact of Clinical Setting on Evaluating Patients Using the PROMIS-29 Baseline Measures in the COVID Era: A Retrospective Multicenter Quantitative Analysis

Background: Multidimensional patient-reported outcomes are a critical part of assessing patients to better understand their well-being during treatment. The PROMIS-29 assessment tool is utilized as a component of assessing multidimensional pain scales. It includes patient-reported measures of pain, mood, sleep, social participation, and function. Currently, there are no data on whether a patient’s immediate environment (remote versus in person) influences the reported patient outcomes measurement of a multidimensional tool represented as PROMIS-29 data. Methods: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. Subjects were identified and consecutively enrolled upon entry into a chronic pain or spine center in the United States. The PROMIS-29 v2.1 was recorded. Statistical differences were assessed among age groups and across the seven domains of the assessment. Results: A total of 25,187 distinct patients were enrolled in the study from August 2018 to December 2020 with a presenting baseline measurement of PROMIS-29. The PROMIS-29 v2.1 was evaluated across the seven domains, and subgroup age analysis was performed for patients completing surveys in the clinical setting (non-remote group) and those completing the survey in the remote setting (remote group) during entry into spine and pain practices across the United States. For mental health scores, those less than 40 years of age and those over 80 years of age showed significant differences in ratings of anxiety and depression in the remote versus non-remote setting. Regarding physical health scores, those aged 60–79 showed a significant difference in the remote versus non-remote ratings for pain interference (p = 0.005; 63.9 vs. 64.4), physical function (p = 0.000; 36.4 vs. 35.7), and fatigue (p = 0.020; 57.2 vs. 57.7), while subjects over 80 years of age showed a statistical difference between the remote versus non-remote setting only in rating physical function (p = 0.025; 33.0 vs. 34). Notably, the rating of sleep disturbance in the remote versus non-remote setting was the only significant variable in the 40–59 age category (p = 0.000; 60.0 vs. 59.1). Those less than 40 years of age also reported a significant difference in the remote versus non-remote setting when rating sleep disturbance (p = 0.000; 60.5 vs. 58.9). With regard to social function, only those older than 80 years showed a significant difference in rating of ability in the remote compared to the non-remote setting (p = 0.031; 39.6 vs. 40.7). Conclusions: This data set is the first published data describing the influence of environment (remote versus in person) on PROMIS-29 outcome measurements in the chronic pain population.