A systematic review to investigate outcome tools currently in use for those with hand burns, and mapping psychometric properties of outcome measures

McKittrick, Andrea; Gustafsson, Louise; Marshall, Kathryn

doi:10.1016/j.burns.2020.07.009

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature demonstrates that multiple outcome measures are often used by clinicians to overcome this gap in the absence of a hand burn specific outcome measure. 12…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 Fifty two percent of the outcome measures were mapped to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) domain of activity limitation and participation restrictions. 12 Importantly, this review 12 identified that despite the inclusion within the studies, few of the outcomes measures were validated for use specifically following hand burn injury and there were few patient reported outcome measures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11 A recent systematic review found 34 studies that included 32 different outcome measures for use post hand burn injuries. 12 Outcome measures which were not specified for example, activities of daily living or which were measured by a standardized assessment tool were condensed to undergo further evaluation. Twenty-five of the identified outcome measures underwent examination of psychometric properties and the review concluded that no single outcome measure met all domains of reliability, validity or responsiveness.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty-five of the identified outcome measures underwent examination of psychometric properties and the review concluded that no single outcome measure met all domains of reliability, validity or responsiveness. 12 Fifty two percent of the outcome measures were mapped to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) domain of activity limitation and participation restrictions. 12 Importantly, this review 12 identified that despite the inclusion within the studies, few of the outcomes measures were validated for use specifically following hand burn injury and there were few patient reported outcome measures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 It is timely for the area of hand burn injury outcome measurement to be explored and developed further, to determine if the currently recommended range of generic measures are acceptable and suitable. The previous systematic review 12 recommended that the perspectives of clinical experts and consumers were essential to further inform the further development of practice. This is the first of two studies and explores the perspectives of clinical experts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Cross-sectional Survey of Health Professionals Across Australia and New Zealand to Determine What Outcome Measures Are Important From a Clinical Perspective Post Hand Burn Injury

McKittrick

Gustafsson

2021

Journal of Burn Care &Amp; Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Outcome measures are used in healthcare to evaluate clinical practice, measure efficiencies and to determine the quality of health care provided. The Burns Trauma Rehabilitation: Allied Health Practice Guidelines advocates for the collection of outcome measures post burn injuries across different time points. These guidelines recommend multiple tools which can be utilised when measuring outcomes post burn injuries. The aim of this study was to gather information from specialist clinicians regarding their clinical practice and the outcome measurement tools used post hand burn injuries. This cross-sectional study used a survey design to collect data at one given point in time across a sample population. A total of 43 clinical specialists allied health professionals responded to the survey. Respondents indicated that their patients considered hand dexterity was the most important outcome. Three months post burn injury was the most common timepoint for measurement (n= 31, 72.1%) followed by six months (n=27, 62.8%). Patient report of hand function (n=42, 97.7%) and observation (n=41, 95.3%) were the most frequently reported assessment methods. The Jamar Dynamometer (n=40, 93%), goniometer (n=39, 90.7%) and pinch gauge (n=36, 83.7) were the most frequency cited assessment tools. The findings of this study suggest that clinical specialist allied health collect some outcome measures in their routine practice. Based on the respondent’s perceptions of barriers when using outcome measures and lack of reliable/ validated tools to measure hand burn outcomes, there is a need for further studies in this area.

show abstract

“…The literature demonstrates that multiple outcome measures are often used by clinicians to overcome this gap in the absence of a hand burn specific outcome measure. 12…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations