Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery (Asia Pacific)

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE S1 ( August, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Designing a Novel Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Evaluating Foot and Ankle Disorders in the Indian Population: The IFAS Score Protocol

Siddhartha Sharma, Sandeep Patel, Inderjit Singh, Ankit Dadra, Shiv M Ajoy, Rajesh Simon, Rajiv Shah, Mandeep S Dhillon

Keywords : Functional outcomes, Indian Foot and Ankle Society score, Patient-reported outcome measures

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10040-1317

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 03-10-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) play a crucial role in assessing functional outcomes and evaluating the impact of diseases on individuals’ well-being. They are widely utilized by foot and ankle surgeons and researchers globally, serving as valuable tools for monitoring treatment response and assessing intervention effectiveness in reducing morbidity. While several PROMs for the evaluation of foot and ankle disorders have been developed and validated in the literature, their applicability to diverse populations and geographical regions remains a concern. Translation into native languages may introduce misinterpretation and irrelevance to certain populations. To address these limitations and cater to the specific needs of Indian and Southeast Asian populations, the Indian Foot and Ankle Society (IFAS) has initiated the development of a tailored PROM, the IFAS score. This protocol outlines the methodology for developing the IFAS score, aiming to provide a culturally sensitive and region-specific PROM that overcomes the challenges faced by existing measures.

PDF Share
  1. Churruca K, Pomare C, Ellis LA, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): a review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expect 2021;24(4):1015–1024. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13254
  2. Weldring T, Smith SM. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights 2013;6:61–68. DOI: 10.4137/HSI.S11093
  3. Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, et al. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 1994;15(7):349–353. DOI: 10.1177/107110079401500701
  4. Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H, et al. Responsiveness of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS, SF-36 and EQ-5D assessments following foot or ankle surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012;94(2):215–221. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B2.27634
  5. Martin RL, Burdett RG, Irrgang JJ. Development of the Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1999;29:A32–A33. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2007.2403
  6. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett RG, et al. Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int 2005;26(11): 968–983. DOI: 10.1177/107110070502601113
  7. Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int 2001;22(10):788–794. DOI: 10.1177/107110070102201004
  8. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 2000;32(4):1008–1015. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567
  9. Sharma S, Shetty N. Use of the modified Delphi technique for developing clinical practice guidelines. Available from
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.