BackgroundThe Observable Movement Quality scale for patients with low back pain (OMQ-LBP) is a newly developed measurement instrument for use in primary care settings of physical and exercise therapists to assess movement quality (MQ) of patients with low back pain (LBP).ObjectiveThis study aims to determine validity, reliability and feasibility of the OMQ-LBP. The OMQ-LBP consists of a standardized movement circuit (performed twice) consisting of five daily activities problematic for LBP patients, which are scored with an 11-item observation list.MethodsConstruct validity was determined by testing seven hypotheses on associations between constructs (n = 85 patients with LBP) and four hypotheses on known group differences (n = 85 patients with LBP and n = 63 healthy controls; n = 35 matched participant-patients having VAS-pain ≥ 20 mm during and/or after both circuits and healthy controls). Internal consistency was analyzed with Cronbach’s alpha (n = 85 patients with LBP). For inter- and intra-rater reliability Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) values were examined (n = 14 therapists: seven primary care physical therapists and seven exercise therapists). Additionally, content validity and feasibility were determined using thematic analysis of a brief interview with participants, patients (n = 38) and therapists (n = 14).ResultsAfter Bonferroni correction 2/7 associations between constructs and 2/4 significant group differences were confirmed. Cronbach’s alpha was 0,79. The ICC-values of interrater reliability of the OMQ-LBP total score and the duration score were 0.56 and 0.99 and intra-rater reliability 0.82 and 0,93, respectively. Thematic analysis revealed five themes. Three themes elucidate that both patients and therapists perceived the content of the OMQ-LBP as valid. The fourth theme exhibits that OMQ-LBP provides a clear and unambiguous language for MQ in patients with LBP. Theme 5 depicts that the OMQ-LBP seems feasible, but video recording is time-consuming.ConclusionsThe OMQ-LBP is a promising standardized observational assessment of MQ during the five most problematic daily activities in patients with LBP. It is expected that uniform and objective description and evaluation of MQ add value to clinical reasoning and facilitate uniform communication with patients and colleagues.
MULTIFILE
Background: Adequate self-management skills are of great importance for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to reduce the impact of COPD exacerbations. Using mobile health (mHealth) to support exacerbation-related self-management could be promising in engaging patients in their own health and changing health behaviors. However, there is limited knowledge on how to design mHealth interventions that are effective, meet the needs of end users, and are perceived as useful. By following an iterative user-centered design (UCD) process, an evidence-driven and usable mHealth intervention was developed to enhance exacerbation-related self-management in patients with COPD. Objective: This study aimed to describe in detail the full UCD and development process of an evidence-driven and usable mHealth intervention to enhance exacerbation-related self-management in patients with COPD. Methods: The UCD process consisted of four iterative phases: (1) background analysis and design conceptualization, (2) alpha usability testing, (3) iterative software development, and (4) field usability testing. Patients with COPD, health care providers, COPD experts, designers, software developers, and a behavioral scientist were involved throughout the design and development process. The intervention was developed using the behavior change wheel (BCW), a theoretically based approach for designing behavior change interventions, and logic modeling was used to map out the potential working mechanism of the intervention. Furthermore, the principles of design thinking were used for the creative design of the intervention. Qualitative and quantitative research methods were used throughout the design and development process. Results: The background analysis and design conceptualization phase resulted in final guiding principles for the intervention, a logic model to underpin the working mechanism of the intervention, and design requirements. Usability requirements were obtained from the usability testing phases. The iterative software development resulted in an evidence-driven and usable mHealth intervention—Copilot, a mobile app consisting of a symptom-monitoring module, and a personalized COPD action plan. Conclusions: By following a UCD process, an mHealth intervention was developed that meets the needs and preferences of patients with COPD, is likely to be used by patients with COPD, and has a high potential to be effective in reducing exacerbation impact. This extensive report of the intervention development process contributes to more transparency in the development of complex interventions in health care and can be used by researchers and designers as guidance for the development of future mHealth interventions.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to study measurement properties of the DutchLanguage Version of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS-DLV) in blue and white collarworkers employed at multiple companies and to compare the validity and factorstructure to other language versions.Methods: Workers (n = 1023) were assessed during a cross-sectional health surveillance.Construct validity was tested with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses(EFA and CFA) and hypothesis testing. Reliability was tested with Cronbach 's alpha.Results: A two-factor structure of the BRS-DLV had good model fit in both EFAand CFA, which could be explained by difficulties of workers with reversed orderitems. After excluding these inconsistent answering patterns, a one-factor structureshowed good model fit resembling the original BRS (χ2 = 16.5; CFI & TLI = 0.99;SRMR = 0.02;RMSEA = 0.04). Internal consitency is sufficient (Cronbach 'sα = 0.78). All five hypotheses were confirmed, suggesting construct validity.Conclusions: Reliability of the BRS-DLV is sufficient and there is evidence of constructvalidity. Inconsistent answering, however, caused problems in interpretationand factor structure of the BRS-DLV. This can be easily detected and handled becauseitem 2, 4 and 6 are in reversed order. Other language versions differ in factorstructure, most likely because systematic errors are not corrected for. To collect validdata, it is advised to be aware of inconsistent answering of respondents.CC BY-NC
MULTIFILE
