Psychometric properties of outcome measures of physical function used with lower limb amputees during prosthetic rehabilitation

Scopes, Judy; Linden, Marietta van der; Gleeson, Nigel

doi:10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.1291

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…36 Seven of the SRs used scoring systems to rate the quality of the instruments they included; however, different scoring approaches led to variation in recommended measures. [37][38][39][40][41][42][43] This variation, in combination with large numbers of measures, and gaps in the reporting of psychometric properties for many measures, may contribute to a lack of 'gold standard' OM or OM consensus. In the most recent SR by Balk et al, the need for a core set of validated OMs is raised to enable comparability across studies and increase their overall value.…”

Section: How Can These Outcome Domains Be Measured?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, whatever the measure, a key concern highlighted in seven of the 10 SRs was responsiveness or the ability to detect change when it has occurred, 27,29,[38][39][40]42,43 which is a priority when using OMs to evaluate rehabilitation interventions in clinical settings. 49 Many of the SRs described an absence of data regarding the ceiling or flooring effects of OMs.…”

Section: How Can These Outcome Domains Be Measured?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…51 Five of the systematic reviews described OMs with these values. 27,37,39,42 MDC (or its equivalent values, i.e. smallest detectable difference, smallest detectable change, and smallest real difference) was established for 20 measures, whereas three reviews identified only two measures with an MCID value.…”

Section: How Can These Outcome Domains Be Measured?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…smallest detectable difference, smallest detectable change, and smallest real difference) was established for 20 measures, whereas three reviews identified only two measures with an MCID value. 37,39,42 Although the MDC value can be useful clinically, without MCID values, clinicians and patients do not know whether the change they have recorded represents a meaningful change to patients' lives, whether clinical interventions were effective, and importantly, whether the investment in rehabilitation was justified. However, reflecting on the first theme of this narrative review, MCID values may only be truly meaningful if the OM captures an outcome domain which is meaningful to the patient's perception of recovery in the first place.…”

Section: How Can These Outcome Domains Be Measured?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…52,53 The barriers identified in this review focus on the experiences of prosthetists, of whom only 28%-44% describe themselves as routine users of OMs. 42,52,53,55 Interestingly, a thesis study of physiotherapists working in amputation rehabilitation settings found that 100% used OMs regularly, but no information was available exploring the drivers for this level of engagement. 42 Therefore, our understanding of the barriers to outcome measurement in prosthetic rehabilitation is limited to the perceptions of prosthetists, which may not reflect the views of the wider prosthetic rehabilitation multidisciplinary team.…”

Section: What Are the Barriers To Outcome Measurement?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

From outcome measurement to improving health outcomes after lower limb amputation—A narrative review exploring outcome measurement from a clinical practice perspective

Ostler

Scott

Sedki

et al. 2022

Prosthetics &Amp; Orthotics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Outcome measurement is essential to understand the impact of clinical interventions and the performance of services. Despite national and professional body encouragement, and successful examples of system level outcome measurement within some health care settings, many barriers still exist preventing outcome measurement from becoming embedded in clinical practice. This paper presents a narrative review which aims to describe the state of the outcome measurement evidence base in prosthetic rehabilitation, as applied in clinical practice, with a view to identifying areas for future work aimed at making outcome measurement in prosthetic rehabilitation a meaningful reality. A literature search of four databases was undertaken, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis principals appropriate to narrative reviews, and using the search terms outcome, measur*, tool, scale, instrument, prosthe*, amput* and limb loss. A total of 1116 papers were identified. Following screening 35 papers, focusing on four main themes, were included in the review. Themes were: 1) What outcome domains should be measured? 2) How can these outcome domains be measured? 3) What are the barriers to outcome measurement? and 4) What can be learnt from examples of ROM in prosthetic rehabilitation?Findings suggest that successful outcome measurement is multifaceted. Understanding and embedding value at every step appears to be key to success. Addressing the questions of ‘what’ outcome domains to measure and ‘how’ to measure them, may help establish consensus. Routine outcome measurement practice at the clinical level should ensure data collection is valuable to clinical practice, makes use of information technology solutions and has organisational engagement.

show abstract