Current use of measurement instruments by physiotherapists working in Germany: a cross-sectional online survey

Braun, Tobias; Rieckmann, A.; Weber, Franziska; Grüneberg, Christian

doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3563-2

Cited by 54 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the number of responses obtained are sufficient to verify if there is a difference between categories [38]. In fact, our numbers are similar or superior to those found in other surveys conducted among osteopaths in the UK [39], Quebec [8] or even similar to recent surveys conducted among physiotherapists in Germany [40], Saudi Arabia [41] or Australia [42]. Only the completion of a regulatory process and the creation of the mandatory official register will allow to exactly know the number of Spanish osteopaths.…”

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 84%

The Spanish Osteopathic Practitioners Estimates and RAtes (OPERA) study: A cross-sectional survey

Alvarez

Roura²,

Cerritelli³

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite the growth of the osteopathic profession in Spain in the last few years, reliable information regarding professional profile and prevalence is still lacking. The Osteopathic Practitioners Estimates and RAtes (OPERA) project was developed as a European-based survey dedicated to profiling the osteopathic profession across Europe. The present study aims to describe the characteristics of osteopathic practitioners, their professional profile and the features of their clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 84%

The Spanish Osteopathic Practitioners Estimates and RAtes (OPERA) study: A cross-sectional survey

Alvarez

Roura²,

Cerritelli³

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants with CSD included in the primary study (n = 153) [ 35 ] were assessed with a comprehensive set of mobility measures immediately after hospital admission (baseline sample). A sub-sample of the baseline participants repeated all baseline mobility measures [ 23 , 35 ]. The present study reports the responsiveness and MIC values of commonly used measurement instruments of mobility capacity and physical functioning.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reviews and recommendation statements have outlined many multi-component mobility capacity measures that are considered suitable for older hospital patients [ 12 , 15 – 17 ], including the Hierarchical Assessment of Balance and Mobility (HABAM) [ 18 ], the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) [ 19 ], Tinetti’s Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA) [ 20 ] and the de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) [ 21 ]. In clinical practice, (shorter) single-component measures of mobility are also used frequently [ 22 , 23 ], such as timed short- and long-distance gait measures, timed chair rise tests and the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) [ 24 ]. However, there is no ‘gold standard’ or widely accepted consensus on a specific measurement instrument of mobility capacity for acute older medical patients in inpatient settings [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsiveness and interpretability of commonly used outcome assessments of mobility capacity in older hospital patients with cognitive spectrum disorders

Braun

Thiel

Schulz

et al. 2021

Health Qual Life Outcomes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In older hospital patients with cognitive spectrum disorders (CSD), mobility should be monitored frequently with standardised and psychometrically sound measurement instruments. This study aimed to examine the responsiveness, minimal important change (MIC), floor effects and ceiling effects of commonly used outcome assessments of mobility capacity in older patients with dementia, delirium or other cognitive impairment. Methods In a cross-sectional study that included acute older hospital patients with CSD (study period: 02/2015–12/2015), the following mobility assessments were applied: de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI), Hierarchical Assessment of Balance and Mobility (HABAM), Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment, Short Physical Performance Battery, 4-m gait speed test, 5-times chair rise test, 2-min walk test, Timed Up and Go test, Barthel Index mobility subscale, and Functional Ambulation Categories. These assessments were administered shorty after hospital admission (baseline) and repeated prior to discharge (follow-up). Global rating of mobility change scales and a clinical anchor of functional ambulation were used as external criteria to determine the area under the curve (AUC). Construct- and anchor-based approaches determined responsiveness. MIC values for each instrument were established from different anchor- and distribution-based approaches. Results Of the 63 participants (age range: 69–94 years) completing follow-up assessments with mild (Mini Mental State Examination: 19–24 points; 67%) and moderate (10–18 points; 33%) cognitive impairment, 25% were diagnosed with dementia alone, 13% with delirium alone, 11% with delirium superimposed on dementia and 51% with another cognitive impairment. The follow-up assessment was performed 10.8 ± 2.5 (range: 7–17) days on average after the baseline assessment. The DEMMI was the most responsive mobility assessment (all AUC > 0.7). For the other instruments, the data provided conflicting evidence of responsiveness, or evidence of no responsiveness. MIC values for each instrument varied depending on the method used for calculation. The DEMMI and HABAM were the only instruments without floor or ceiling effects. Conclusions Most outcome assessments of mobility capacity seem insufficiently responsive to change in older hospital patients with CSD. The significant floor effects of most instruments further limit the monitoring of mobility alterations over time in this population. The DEMMI was the only instrument that was able to distinguish clinically important changes from measurement error. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00005591). Registered February 2, 2015.

show abstract

“…The cultural and technical barriers mainly depend on the educational background of the clinical staff. Indeed, wide differences between countries exist, since the training programs of PTs and clinicians are very different, especially in approaching new technologies (29,30). Moreover, to our best knowledge, studies on the barriers to sEMG in clinical practice lack.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers to sEMG Assessment During Overground Robot-Assisted Gait Training in Subacute Stroke Patients

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The limitation to the use of ElectroMyoGraphy (sEMG) in rehabilitation services is in contrast with its potential diagnostic capacity for rational planning and monitoring of the rehabilitation treatments, especially the overground Robot-Assisted Gait Training (o-RAGT). Objective: To assess the barriers to the implementation of a sEMG-based assessment protocol in a clinical context for evaluating the effects of o-RAGT in subacute stroke patients. Methods: An observational study was conducted in a rehabilitation hospital. The primary outcome was the success rate of the implementation of the sEMG-based assessment. The number of dropouts and the motivations have been registered. A detailed report on difficulties in implementing the sEMG protocol has been edited for each patient. The educational level and the working status of the staff have been registered. Each member of staff completed a brief survey indicating their level of knowledge of sEMG, using a five-point Likert scale. Results: The sEMG protocol was carried out by a multidisciplinary team composed of Physical Therapists (PTs) and Biomedical Engineers (BEs). Indeed, the educational level and the expertise of the members of staff influenced the fulfillment of the implementation of the study. The PTs involved in the study did not receive any formal education on sEMG during their course of study. The low success rate (22.7%) of the protocol was caused by several factors which could be grouped in: patient-related barriers; cultural barriers; technical barriers; and administrative barriers. Conclusions: Since a series of barriers limited the use of sEMG in the clinical rehabilitative environment, concrete actions are needed for disseminating sEMG in rehabilitation services. The sEMG assessment should be included in health systems regulations and specific education should be part of the rehabilitation professionals' curriculum.

show abstract

Current use of measurement instruments by physiotherapists working in Germany: a cross-sectional online survey

Cited by 54 publications

References 46 publications

The Spanish Osteopathic Practitioners Estimates and RAtes (OPERA) study: A cross-sectional survey

The Spanish Osteopathic Practitioners Estimates and RAtes (OPERA) study: A cross-sectional survey

Responsiveness and interpretability of commonly used outcome assessments of mobility capacity in older hospital patients with cognitive spectrum disorders

Barriers to sEMG Assessment During Overground Robot-Assisted Gait Training in Subacute Stroke Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About