Objective. There are no Dutch language disease-specific questionnaires for patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome available that could help Dutch physiotherapists to assess and monitor these symptoms and functional limitations. The aim of this study was to translate the original disease-specific Kujala Patellofemoral Score into Dutch and evaluate its reliability. Methods. The questionnaire was translated from English into Dutch in accordance with internationally recommended guidelines. Reliability was determined in 50 stable subjects with an interval of 1 week. The patient inclusion criteria were age between 14 and 60 years; knowledge of the Dutch language; and the presence of at least three of the following symptoms: pain while taking the stairs, pain when squatting, pain when running, pain when cycling, pain when sitting with knees flexed for a prolonged period, grinding of the patella and a positive clinical patella test. The internal consistency, test–retest reliability, measurement error and limits of agreement were calculated. Results. Internal consistency was 0.78 for the first assessment and 0.80 for the second assessment. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICCagreement) between the first and second assessments was 0.98. The mean difference between the first and second measurements was 0.64, and standard deviation was 5.51. The standard error measurement was 3.9, and the smallest detectable change was 11. The Bland and Altman plot shows that the limits of agreement are 10.37 and 11.65. Conclusions. The results of the present study indicated that the test–retest reliability translated Dutch version of the Kujala Patellofemoral Score questionnaire is equivalent of the test– retest original English language version and has good internal consistency. Trial registration NTR (TC = 3258). Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Purpose To empirically define the concept of burden of neck pain. The lack of a clear understanding of this construct from the perspective of persons with neck pain and care providers hampers adequate measurement of this burden. An additional aim was to compare the conceptual model obtained with the frequently used Neck Disability Index (NDI). Methods Concept mapping, combining qualitative (nominal group technique and group consensus) and quantitative research methods (cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling), was applied to groups of persons with neck pain (n = 3) and professionals treating persons with neck pain (n = 2). Group members generated statements, which were organized into concept maps. Group members achieved consensus about the number and description of domains and the researchers then generated an overall mind map covering the full breadth of the burden of neck pain. Results Concept mapping revealed 12 domains of burden of neck pain: impaired mobility neck, neck pain, fatigue/concentration, physical complaints, psychological aspects/consequences, activities of daily living, social participation, financial consequences, difficult to treat/difficult to diagnose, difference of opinion with care providers, incomprehension by social environment, and how person with neck pain deal with complaints. All ten items of the NDI could be linked to the mind map, but the NDI measures only part of the burden of neck pain. Conclusion This study revealed the relevant domains for the burden of neck pain from the viewpoints of persons with neck pain and their care providers. These results can guide the identification of existing measurements instruments for each domain or the development of new ones to measure the burden of neck pain.
