Biomedical subjects

R A B Oostendorp

Publications and source records attributed to R A B Oostendorp.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Effect on the process of care of an active strategy to implement clinical guidelines on physiotherapy for low back pain: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect on the process of care of an active strategy to implement clinical guidelines on physiotherapy for low back pain. DESIGN: A cluster randomised controlled trial comparing an active strategy with standard dissemination. SETTING: Primary care physiotherapy practices. PARTICIPANTS: 113 physiotherapists were randomly allocated to receive the guidelines by mail (control group) or to receive an additional active strategy (intervention group) which consisted of a multifaceted programme including education, discussion, role playing, feedback, and reminders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to the guidelines was measured by means of individual patients' forms recording the treatment completed by the physiotherapist. The forms were assessed using an algorithm based on the number of treatment sessions, treatment goals, interventions, and patient education. RESULTS: Physiotherapists in the intervention group more often correctly limited the number of treatment sessions for patients with a normal course of back pain (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.12 to 5.12), more often set functional treatment goals (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.06 to 3.72), more often used mainly active interventions (OR 2.79; 95% CI 1.19 to 6.55), and more often gave adequate patient education (OR 3.59; 95% CI 1.35 to 9.55). They also adhered more to all four criteria (OR 2.05; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.65). CONCLUSIONS: The active strategy moderately improved adherence to the guidelines. Active strategies are recommended to implement the clinical guidelines on physiotherapy for low back pain.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

PubMed2003

Psychometric properties of the Tampa Scale for kinesiophobia and the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire in acute low back pain.

The transition from acute to chronic low back pain (LBP) is influenced by many interacting factors. Pain-related fear, as measured by the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) and the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), is one of these factors. The objectives of this study were to investigate, in a population with acute LBP, the reliability of TSK and FABQ through evaluation of the internal consistency, the test-retest reliability, and the concurrent validity between TSK and FABQ. One hundred and Seventy-Six patients suffering LBP for no longer than 4 weeks completed a Visual Analogue Scale for pain (VAS), the TSK, the FABQ, and a socio-demographic questionnaire. Each patient completed the VAS, TSK, and FABQ twice within 24 h. Internal consistency of TSK and FABQ scores range from alpha=0.70 to 0.83. Test-retest reliability ranges from r(s)=0.64 to 0.80 (P<0.01). Concurrent validity is moderate, ranging from r(s) =0.33 to 0.59 (P<0.01). It may be concluded that in a population with acute LBP, both the TSK and the FABQ are reliable measures of pain-related fear. In the clinical setting they may provide the practitioner a means of identifying pain-related fear in a patient with acute LBP.

Acute Disease↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Construct validity of instruments measuring impairments in body structures and function in rheumatic disorders: which constructs are selected for validation? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: This paper focuses on the construct validity of instruments measuring impairments in body structures and function in rheumatic disorders. The objective is: 1) to make an inventory of constructs, based on the domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disabilities and Health problems (ICF), against which instruments measuring impairments in body structures and function were validated; 2) to analyse whether validation against a similar construct resulted in higher correlation coefficients than validation against a dissimilar construct. METHODS: In a systematic review papers were identified in which instruments measuring impairments in body structures and function for patients with rheumatic disorders were validated. The instruments identified were assessed on their methodological properties and the constructs against which they were validated. Subsequently, pooled (interclass) correlations of similar constructs and dissimilar constructs against which was validated were compared. An instrument was decided to have good construct validity, if the correlation coefficient was 0.50 or higher, and the measurement instrument in question is validated against similar constructs. RESULTS: In total 216 papers were identified analysing the validity of 42 different instruments. Only 16% of these instruments were validated against instruments that represent the most similar construct. In general, estimates of construct validity were lower when validated against dissimilar constructs, except for instruments measuring impairments in mental functions. CONCLUSION: There is a trend that validation against a similar construct yields higher correlation coefficients than validation against a dissimilar construct. If an instrument measuring impairments is validated against the most similar construct, and a criterion of r > 0.50 is applied, only 10 out of the 42 identified instruments turned out to be valid.

Humans↗