Description: The Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPDS or NPAD) is a questionnaire aiming to quantify neck pain and disability.1 It is a patient-reported outcome measure for patients with any type of neck pain, of any duration, with or without injury.1,2 It consists of 20 items: three related to pain intensity, four related to emotion and cognition, four related to mobility of the neck, eight related to activity limitations and participation restrictions and one on medication.1,3 Patients respond to each item on a 0 to 5 visual analogue scale of 10 cm. There is also a nine-item short version.4 Feasibility: The NPDS is published and available online (https://mountainphysiotherapy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Neck-Pain-and-Disability-Scale.pdf).1 The NPDS is an easy to use questionnaire that can be completed within 5 to 8 minutes.1,5 There is no training needed to administer the instrument but its validity is compromised if the questionnaire must be read to the patient.2 Higher scores indicate higher severity (0 for normal functioning to 5 for the worst possible situation ‘your’ pain problem has caused you).2 The total score is the sum of scores on the 20 items (0 to 100).1 The maximum acceptable number of missing answers is three (15%).4 Two studies found a minimum important change of 10 points (sensitivity 0.93; specificity 0.83) and 11.5 points (sensibility 0.74; specificity 0.70), respectively.6,7 The NPDS is available in English, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Hindi, Iranian, Korean, Turkish, Japanese and Thai. Reliability and validity: Two systematic reviews have evaluated the clinimetric properties of 11 of the translated versions.5,8 The Finnish, German and Italian translations were particularly recommended for use in clinical practice. Face validity was established and content validity was confirmed by an adequate reflection of all aspects of neck pain and disability.1,8 Regarding structural validity, the NPDS is a multidimensional scale, with moderate evidence that the NPDS has a three-factor structure (with explained variance ranging from 63 to 78%): neck dysfunction related to general activities; neck pain and neck-specific function; and cognitive-emotional-behavioural functioning. 4,5,9 A recent overview of four systematic reviews found moderate-quality evidence of high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.86 to 0.93 for the various factors).10 Excellent test-retest reliability was found (ICC of 0.97); however, the studies were considered to be of low quality.3,10 Construct validity (hypotheses-testing) seems adequate when the NPDS is compared with the Neck Disability Index and the Global Assessment of Change with moderate to strong correlations (r = 0.52 to 0.86), based on limited moderate-quality studies.3,11,12 One systematic review reported good responsiveness to change in patients (r = 0.59).12
DOCUMENT
The six-minute walk test (6MWT) is a self-paced, submaximal exercise test used to assess functional exercise capacity in patients with chronic diseases (Chang 2006, Solway et al 2001). It has been used widely in adults, and is being utilised increasingly in paediatric populations; it has been used as an estimate of physical fitness in, for example, children with severe cardiopulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (Hassan et al 2010).
DOCUMENT
The use of measurement instruments has become a major issue in physical therapy, but their use in daily practice is infrequent. The aims of this case report were to develop and evaluate a plan for the systematic implementation of two measurement instruments frequently recommended in Dutch physical therapy clinical guidelines: the Patient-Specific Complaints instrument and the Six-Minute Walk Test.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: The survival rates for patients with advanced cancer have increased over time. Many patients experience symptoms and functional limitations that impair activities of daily living and limit quality of life. A number of these health problems are amenable to physical therapist treatment. However, physical therapists caring for patients with advanced cancer require special training and skills.OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess the educational needs and clinical uncertainties of Dutch physical therapists in relation to treatment of patients with advanced cancer.DESIGN: This was a mixed methods study.METHODS: A survey and 2 focus groups were conducted among physical therapists working in primary care who had previously received at least basic oncology training.RESULTS: A total of 162 physical therapists completed the survey. The most frequently reported educational needs were related to effective interprofessional collaboration (61.7%), knowledge of medical treatment (49.4%), and current evidence on physical therapist interventions in this population (49.4%). In the focus groups, physical therapists (n = 17) voiced uncertainties about treating patients with bone metastases, setting realistic goals, when and how to end a treatment episode, interprofessional collaboration, finding and using evidence, and using clinimetrics.CONCLUSION: These results support the need for specific education programs for physical therapists working with advanced cancer patients to increase the availability of high-quality oncology rehabilitation for this population.
DOCUMENT
Background: Patient participation in goal setting is important to deliver client-centered care. In daily practice, however, patient involvement in goal setting is not optimal. Patient-specific instruments, such as the Patient Specific Complaints (PSC) instrument, can support the goal-setting process because patients can identify and rate their own problems. The aim of this study is to explore patients’ experiences with the feasibility of the PSC, in the physiotherapy goal setting. Method: We performed a qualitative study. Data were collected by observations of physiotherapy sessions (n=23) and through interviews with patients (n=23) with chronic conditions in physiotherapy practices. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis. Results: The PSC was used at different moments and in different ways. Two feasibility themes were analyzed. First was the perceived ambiguity with the process of administration: patients perceived a broad range of experiences, such as emotional and supportive, as well as feeling a type of uncomfortableness. The second was the perceived usefulness: patients found the PSC useful for themselves – to increase awareness and motivation and to inform the physiotherapist – as well as being useful for the physiotherapist – to determine appropriate treatment for their personal needs. Some patients did not perceive any usefulness and were not aware of any relation with their treatment. Patients with a more positive attitude toward questionnaires, patients with an active role, and health-literate patients appreciated the PSC and felt facilitated by it. Patients who lacked these attributes did not fully understand the PSC’s process or purpose and let the physiotherapist take the lead. Conclusion: The PSC is a feasible tool to support patient participation in the physiotherapy goal setting. However, in the daily use of the PSC, patients are not always fully involved and informed. Patients reported varied experiences related to their personal attributes and modes of administration. This means that the PSC cannot be used in the same way in every patient. It is perfectly suited to use in a dialogue manner, which makes it very suitable to improve goal setting within client-centered care.
DOCUMENT
Pain in critically ill adults with burns should be assessed using structured pain behavioural observation measures. This study tested the clinimetric qualities and usability of the behaviour pain scale (BPS) and the critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT) in this population. This prospective observational cohort study included 132 nurses who rated pain behaviour in 75 patients. The majority of nurses indicated that BPS and CPOT reflect background and procedural pain-specific features (63–72 and 87–80%, respectively). All BPS and CPOT items loaded on one latent variable (≥0.70), except for compliance ventilator and vocalisation for CPOT (0.69 and 0.64, respectively). Internal consistency also met the criterion of ≥0.70 in ventilated and non-ventilated patients for both scales, except for non-ventilated patients observed by BPS (0.67). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of total scores were sufficient (≥0.70), but decreased when patients had facial burns. In general, the scales were fast to administer and easy to understand. Cut-off scores for BPS and CPOT were 4 and 1, respectively. In conclusion, both scales seem valid, reliable, and useful for the measurement of acute pain in ICU patients with burns, including patients with facial burns. Cut-off scores associated with BPS and CPOT for the burn population allow professionals to connect total scores to person-centred treatment protocols.
DOCUMENT
Parents have a vital influence on the participation of their child with a physical disability. The aim of this study is to gain insight into parents’ own daily actions, challenges, and needs while supporting their child with a physical disability at home, at school, and in the community. An additional objective of this study is to refine the preliminary thematic framework previously identified in a scoping review.
DOCUMENT
The Nociception Coma Scale is a nociception behaviour observation tool, developed specifically for patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) due to (acquired) brain injury. Over the years, the clinimetric properties of the NCS and its revised version (NCS-R) have been assessed, but no formal summary of these properties has been made. Therefore, we performed a systematic review on the clinimetric properties (i.e. reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability) of the NCS(-R). We systematically searched CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo and Web of Science until August 2015. Two reviewers independently selected the clinimetric studies and extracted data with a structured form. Included studies were appraised on quality with the COSMIN checklist. Eight studies were found eligible and were appraised with the COSMIN checklist. Although nearly all studies lacked sample size calculation, and were executed by the same group of authors, the methodological quality ranged from fair to excellent. Important aspects of reliability, construct validity and responsiveness have been studied in depth and with sufficient methodological quality. The overview of clinimetric properties in this study shows that the NCS and NCS-R are both valid and useful instruments to assess nociceptive behaviour in DOC patients. The studies provide guidance for the choice in NCS-R cut-off value for possible pain treatment and cautions awareness of interprofessional differences in NCS-R measurements.SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review provides a structured overview of the clinimetric properties of the Nociception Coma Scale (-Revised) and provides insights for a solid evidence-based nociception behaviour assessment and treatment plan.
DOCUMENT
