Biomedical subjects

Elly Budiman-Mak

Publications and source records attributed to Elly Budiman-Mak.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Shoulder pain in the traumatically injured spinal cord patient: evaluation of risk factors and function.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain in individuals with traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) is common and frequently results in chronic debilitating pain recalcitrant to treatment. OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to identify the risk factors associated with shoulder pain in the TSCI population. METHODS: A telephone survey and medical record review were conducted on a convenience sample of patients with TSCI. Data variables included: Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), demographics, injury type, treatment histories for shoulder pain/dysfunction, assistive device use, and radiographic imaging. RESULTS: Respondents (n=63) were male (96%) and tetraplegia (51%) with a mean age of 58.1 years. The majority of patients (70%) currently had shoulder pain, one third had previous injury to the shoulder, and 52% reported bilateral pain. Tetraplegics had higher prevalence (80%) of shoulder pain and higher total SPADI scores than paraplegics (P=0.001). Previous shoulder trauma increased the likelihood of shoulder pain. Self-care posed their most difficult task. Use of a manual wheelchair (71%) and/or trapeze bar (51%) was common. However, no differences were found in wheelchair or trapeze bar use or average body mass index between groups with and without pain. Respondents with pain tended to use trapeze bars less. Of the respondents reporting shoulder pain, an estimated 57% received physical therapy and massage with most reporting some benefit; 53% had pharmaceutical treatment with variable effect. CONCLUSION: Shoulder pain is common in patients with TSCI. Tetraplegics fared worse than paraplegics. Pain may limit transfer because respondents with pain used trapeze bars less. Understanding and addressing the factors contributing to shoulder pain in this vulnerable population is sorely needed.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Theoretical model and Rasch analysis to develop a revised Foot Function Index.

BACKGROUND: The Foot Function Index (FFI) is a widely used self-reported measure of health-related foot function. Several areas have been identified for potential improvement, and this study responds to such criticisms. The objectives of this study were to: (1) develop a theoretical model of foot functioning, (2) develop a revised FFI (FFI-R), and (3) field-test the FFI-R. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to develop the theoretical model. The FFI-R items were developed from the original 23 FFI items, and more items were added as a result of the literature review. A focus group discussion with clinicians and pilot interviews with patients resulted in a final draft of the FFI-R. This draft consisted of four subscales and comprised 68 items with a six-point response scale. The FFI-R was field tested on 92 patients in the podiatry clinic of a Veterans Administration Hospital in the Midwest. Psychometric analyses were conducted with modern item response theory (IRT) methods. RESULTS: A theoretical model of foot functioning was developed. The FFI-R response scale was revised from six to five categories since confusion was found between categories 4 and 5. Rasch analyses indicated a person reliability of 0.96 and item reliability of 0.93. The subscale reliability of pain and stiffness, psychosocial, and disability were all >0.80; the exception was assistive devices (>0.50). Construct validity of FFI-R was supported based on the correlation of 50-ft walk time with an FFI-R total of 0.306, p = 0.018, N = 59. Rasch analyses indicated several items with poor fit statistics and a short form with 34 items was developed. CONCLUSION: The FFI was revised, and new items were added to compose the FFI-R. The chief theoretical change was adding a psychosocial scale. Both long and short forms had very good psychometric properties.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

The foot function index with verbal rating scales (FFI-5pt): A clinimetric evaluation and comparison with the original FFI.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinimetric value of the Dutch version of the Foot Function Index (FFI) in comparison with the original FFI using verbal rating scales (FFI-5pt) rather than visual analog scales (VAS). METHODS: A prospective study was performed on 206 patients with nontraumatic forefoot complaints. Scoring, internal consistency, and construct validity of the FFI-5pt were compared with those of the original FFI, which rates all items on VAS. We also studied agreement between the scores at baseline and after one and 8 weeks and the scale scores with regard to sex, age, presence of osteoarthritis, limitation of mobility, bodily pain, and poor physical functioning (using SF-36). RESULTS: Some items were not applicable; removal of these items left 2 scales (Pain and Disability) with high internal consistency (alpha = 0.88 to 0.94) and good agreement between both versions (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.64 to 0.79). Principal component analysis with varimax rotation using a forced 2 factor model fitted well (65% explained variance). Test-retest reliability was high (ICC 0.70 to 0.83), while the stability over 8 weeks was lower, but still good (ICC 0.63 to 0.71). Responsiveness to change was low to moderate. However, a small number of patients reported an overall change (19%). Scores of patients with limited mobility and poor physical health (SF-36) were higher than those of patients with fewer physical problems, indicating good concurrent validity. CONCLUSION: The FFI-5pt is a suitable generic measure. Its clinimetric properties are comparable with those of the original FFI. Its administration and data entry are less time consuming. However, responsiveness has to be more exactly assessed in an intervention study.

Aged↗