RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Many of the various types of treatments that are used in the rehabilitation of patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) require active involvement of the patient. Patient expectations, for instance with regard to treatment, such as physical therapy, could be important prognostic factors. Behavioral interventions to modify those expectations might improve treatment outcome and prevent chronicity. To facilitate this field of research, valid and reliable measurement instruments to assess patient expectations are needed. The aim of this systematic overview was to identify all the relevant published measurement instruments and to describe their clinimetric properties. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant databases was performed, and all relevant articles were included. Two independent reviewers included the relevant articles and assessed the clinimetric properties. RESULTS: A total of 24 measurement instruments were eligible for inclusion in the review. For most types of MSD, there was only one instrument available. Construct validity, assessed with factor analysis, was tested in two-thirds of the instruments. Other forms of construct validity (eg, convergent validity and divergent validity) were only tested in 10 of the 24 instruments. Reproducibility was only tested in 5 instruments, but the test methods were seldom satisfactory, hampering the interpretation of these results. DISCUSSION: In summary, many instruments have been developed for the treatment of many types of MSD, but the data regarding the validity or reliability of many of the instruments included in this review are scarce. Therefore, in the first place, we strongly recommend that further research is to be carried out to assess the validity and reliability of these instruments. Secondly, it is necessary to assess the instrument's ability to detect change to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions that focus on self-efficacy and outcome expectations.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Passive intervertebral motion (PIVM) assessment is a characterizing skill of manual physical therapists (MPTs) and is important for judgments about impairments in spinal joint function. It is unknown as to why and how MPTs use this mobility testing of spinal motion segments within their clinical reasoning and decision-making. This qualitative study aimed to explore and understand the role and position of PIVM assessment within the manual diagnostic process. Eight semistructured individual interviews with expert MPTs and three subsequent group interviews using manual physical therapy consultation platforms were conducted. Line-by-line coding was performed on the transcribed data, and final main themes were identified from subcategories. Three researchers were involved in the analysis process. Four themes emerged from the data: contextuality, consistency, impairment orientedness, and subjectivity. These themes were interrelated and linked to concepts of professionalism and clinical reasoning. MPTs used PIVM assessment within a multidimensional, biopsychosocial framework incorporating clinical data relating to mechanical dysfunction as well as to personal factors while applying various clinical reasoning strategies. Interpretation of PIVM assessment and subsequent decisions on manipulative treatment were strongly rooted within practitioners' practical knowledge. This study has identified the specific role and position of PIVM assessment as related to other clinical findings within clinical reasoning and decision-making in manual physical therapy in The Netherlands. We recommend future research in manual diagnostics to account for the multivariable character of physical examination of the spine.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Attempts have been made to provide guidelines for interpreting Barthel scores. We used a Rasch analysis to improve the measurement properties and clinical interpretability of the Barthel index score. METHODS: A specific extension of Rasch model was used to identify items that preclude the summation of items and to improve the item rating scale by examining the scores on the Barthel of 559 stroke patients scored 3 weeks (n=89) and 6 months (n=470) after stroke. The clinical interpretation of the revised Rasch modeled Barthel was illustrated by re-examining the results of a previously published trial on the effectiveness of leg and arm training after stroke. RESULTS: Most rating scales could be improved by collapsing nondiscriminating rating categories. Two items showed misfit: Bladder and Bowel. The remaining Barthel showed an excellent fit to the extended Rasch model (R1c Goodness-of-Fit P=0.35). Both items and patients could be placed on a common logit unit scale, allowing a clearer interpretation of the trial effect. Using the modeled activities of daily living difficulty/ability scale, we could express the differences between treatment arms in modeled probabilities of a positive score to each Barthel item for the treatment arms not conveyed by the original ordinal Barthel sum scores. CONCLUSIONS: We improved the psychometric properties and clinical interpretation of the Barthel index.

Asunto(s)