PurposeTo develop a translated Dutch version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT) and test its psychometric properties in a Dutch population with foot and ankle complaints.MethodsThe CAIT was translated into the Dutch language using a forward–backward translation design. Of the 130 subsequent patients visiting the outpatient clinic for foot and ankle complaints who were asked to fill out a questionnaire containing the CAIT, the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and the numeric rating scale (NRS) pain, 98 completed the questionnaire. After a 1-week period, patients were asked to fill out a second questionnaire online containing the CAIT and NRS pain. This second questionnaire was completed by 70 patients. With these data, the construct validity, test–retest reliability, internal consistency, measurement error, and ceiling and floor effects were assessed. Additionally, a cut-off value to discriminate between stable and unstable ankles, in patients with ankle complaints, was calculated.ResultsConstruct validity showed moderate correlations between the CAIT and FAOS subscales (Spearman’s correlation coefficient (SCC) = 0.36–0.43), and the NRS pain (SCC = −0.55). The cut-off value was found at 11.5 points of the total CAIT score (range 0–30). Test–retest reliability showed to be excellent with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.94. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.86). No ceiling or floor effects were detected.ConclusionBased on the results, the Dutch version of the CAIT is a valid and reliable questionnaire to assess ankle instability in the Dutch population and is able to differentiate between a functionally unstable and stable ankle. The tool is the first suitable tool to objectify the severity of ankle instability specific complaints and assess change in the Dutch population. Level of evidence II.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: Cooperation between clinical and occupational health care practitioners is a key aspect of clinical work-integrating care. This study aimed to gain insight into patients' experiences, needs, and expectations regarding cooperation between medical specialists and occupational health physicians. Methods: A thematic qualitative study was conducted involving a total of 33 participants in eight online focus groups. Results: Participants indicated practitioners are currently working in an isolated manner. However, participants desired for partnership between specialists and occupational health physicians to address work-related concerns and showed a need for explanation of the consequences of their diagnosis, so this can be translated into their ability to work. Conclusions: Currently, cooperation between clinical and occupational health care is lacking. Yet, some participants experienced that these disciplines could complement each other by working together to support patients in work participation.