A Core Set of Outcome Measures for Adults With Neurologic Conditions Undergoing Rehabilitation: A CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE

Jennifer L Moore, Kirsten Potter, Kathleen Blankshain, Sandra L Kaplan, Linda C OʼDwyer, Jane E Sullivan, Jennifer L Moore, Kirsten Potter, Kathleen Blankshain, Sandra L Kaplan, Linda C OʼDwyer, Jane E Sullivan

Abstract

Background: Use of outcome measures (OMs) in adult neurologic physical therapy is essential for monitoring changes in a patient's status over time, quantifying observations and patient-reported function, enhancing communication, and increasing the efficiency of patient care. OMs also provide a mechanism to compare patient and organizational outcomes, examine intervention effectiveness, and generate new knowledge. This clinical practice guideline (CPG) examined the literature related to OMs of balance, gait, transfers, and patient-stated goals to identify a core set of OMs for use across adults with neurologic conditions and practice settings.

Methods: To determine the scope of this CPG, surveys were conducted to assess the needs and priorities of consumers and physical therapists. OMs were identified through recommendations of the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy's Evidence Database to Guide Effectiveness task forces. A systematic review of the literature on the OMs was conducted and additional OMs were identified; the literature search was repeated on these measures. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were critically appraised by 2 reviewers using a modified version of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. (COSMIN) checklist. Methodological quality and the strength of statistical results were determined. To be recommended for the core set, the OMs needed to demonstrate excellent psychometric properties in high-quality studies across neurologic conditions.

Results/discussion: Based on survey results, the CPG focuses on OMs that have acceptable clinical utility and can be used to assess change over time in a patient's balance, gait, transfers, and patient-stated goals. Strong, level I evidence supports the use of the Berg Balance Scale to assess changes in static and dynamic sitting and standing balance and the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale to assess changes in balance confidence. Strong to moderate evidence supports the use of the Functional Gait Assessment to assess changes in dynamic balance while walking, the 10 meter Walk Test to assess changes in gait speed, and the 6-Minute Walk Test to assess changes in walking distance. Best practice evidence supports the use of the 5 Times Sit-to-Stand to assess sit to standing transfers. Evidence was insufficient to support use of a specific OM to assess patient-stated goals across adult neurologic conditions. Physical therapists should discuss the OM results with patients and collaboratively decide how the results should inform the plan of care.

Disclaimer: The recommendations included in this CPG are intended as a guide for clinicians, patients, educators, and researchers to improve rehabilitation care and its impact on adults with neurologic conditions. The contents of this CPG were developed with support from the APTA and the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy (ANPT). The Guideline Development Group (GDG) used a rigorous review process and was able to freely express its findings and recommendations without influence from the APTA or the ANPT. The authors declare no competing interest.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A214.

References

    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:2.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Gibbons E, et al. Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) checklist. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:82.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:22.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–745.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539–549.
    1. Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
    1. Fetters L, Tilson J. Evidence Based Physical Therapy. Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis; 2012.
    1. Terwee CB. Protocol for Systematic Reviews of Measurement Properties. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Knowledge Center Measurement Instruments; 2011.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.
    1. Steffen T, Seney M. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change on balance and ambulation tests, the 36-item short-form health survey, and the unified Parkinson disease rating scale in people with parkinsonism. Phys Ther. 2008;88(6):733–746.
    1. Quinn L, Khalil H, Dawes H, et al. Reliability and minimal detectable change of physical performance measures in individuals with pre-manifest and manifest Huntington disease. Phys Ther. 2013;93(7):942–956.
    1. American Physical Therapy Association. Clinical Practice Guidelines. . Accessed October 10, 2017.
    1. American Physical Therapy Association. Guide to Physical Therapist Practice 3.0. . Accessed June 24, 2017.
    1. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and health: ICF [computer program]. Version 1.0. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
    1. Potter K, Fulk GD, Salem Y, Sullivan J. Outcome measures in neurological physical therapy practice: part I. Making sound decisions. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2011;35(2):57–64.
    1. Sullivan JE, Andrews AW, Lanzino D, Perron AE, Potter KA. Outcome measures in neurological physical therapy practice: part II. A patient-centered process. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2011;35(2):65–74.
    1. Potter K, Cohen ET, Allen DD, et al. Outcome measures for individuals with multiple sclerosis: recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association Neurology Section task force. Phys Ther. 2014;94(5):593–608.
    1. Sullivan JE, Crowner BE, Kluding PM, et al. Outcome measures for individuals with stroke: process and recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association neurology section task force. Phys Ther. 2013;93(10):1383–1396.
    1. Kahn JH, Tappan R, Newman CP, et al. Outcome measure recommendations from the spinal cord injury EDGE task force. Phys Ther. 2016;96(11):1832–1842.
    1. McCulloch KL, de Joya AL, Hays K, et al. Outcome measures for persons with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy TBI EDGE Task Force. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2016;40(4):269–280.
    1. Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy. Academy of Neurologic PT Outcome Measures Recommendations. . Accessed June 25, 2017.
    1. Institute of Medicine. Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 2013.
    1. Haigh R, Tennant A, Biering-Sorensen F. The use of outcome measures in physical medicine and rehabilitation in Europe. Eur J Rehabil Med. 2001;33:273–278.
    1. Jette DU, Halbert J, Iverson C, Miceli E, Shah P. Use of standardized outcome measures in physical therapist practice: perceptions and applications. Phys Ther. 2009;89(2):125–135.
    1. Andrews AW, Folger SE, Norbet SE, Swift LC. Tests and measures used by specialist physical therapists when examining patients with stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2008;32(3):122–128.
    1. Thier SO. Forces motivating the use of health status assessment measures in clinical settings and related clinical research. Med Care. 1992;30(5 suppl):MS15–MS22.
    1. Lansky D, Butler JB, Waller FT. Using health status measures in the hospital setting: from acute care to “outcomes management.” Med Care. 1992;30(5 suppl):MS57–MS73.
    1. Cano SJ, Hobart JC. Watch out, watch out, the FDA are about. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50(6):408–409.
    1. Fulk G, Field-Fote EC. Measures of evidence in evidence-based practice. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2011;35(2):55–56.
    1. Horn SD, Gassaway J, Pentz L, James R. Practice-based evidence for clinical practice improvement: an alternative study design for evidence-based medicine. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;151:446–460.
    1. Salter KL, Teasell RW, Foley NC, Jutai JW. Outcome assessment in randomized controlled trials of stroke rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86(12):1007–1012.
    1. Van Peppen RP, Maissan FJ, Van Genderen FR, Van Dolder R, Van Meeteren NL. Outcome measures in physiotherapy management of patients with stroke: a survey into self-reported use, and barriers to and facilitators for use. Physiother Res Int. 2008;13(4):255–270.
    1. Wedge FM, Braswell-Christy J, Brown CJ, Foley KT, Graham C, Shaw S. Factors influencing the use of outcome measures in physical therapy practice. Physiother Theory Pract. 2012;28(2):119–133.
    1. Stevens JG, Beurskens AJ. Implementation of measurement instruments in physical therapist practice: development of a tailored strategy. Phys Ther. 2010;90(6):953–961.
    1. Abrams D, Davidson M, Harrick J, Harcourt P, Zylinski M, Clancy J. Monitoring the change: current trends in outcome measure usage in physiotherapy. Man Ther. 2006;11(1):46–53.
    1. Beattie P, Maher C. The role of functional status questionnaires for low back pain. Aust J Physiother. 1997;43(1):29–38.
    1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Functional Reporting: PT, OT, and SLP Services Frequently Asked Questions Document Now Available. . Published 2014. Accessed June 25, 2017.
    1. American Physical Therapy Association. Functional Limitation Reporting (FLR) Under Medicare: Tests and Measures for High-Volume Conditions. . Accessed June 25, 2017.
    1. Moore JL, Raad J, Ehrlich-Jones L, Heinemann AW. Development and use of a knowledge translation tool: the rehabilitation measures database. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(1):197–202.
    1. Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, de Vet HC. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(8):1115–1123.
    1. COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments home page. . Accessed June 25, 2017.
    1. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(4):651–657.
    1. SurveyMonkey home page. . Accessed June 25, 2017.
    1. Guideline Elements Model. BridgeWiz for APTA 3.0. . Published 2011. Accessed June 25, 2017.
    1. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010;182(18):E839–E842.
    1. Shiffman RN, Dixon J, Brandt C, et al. The GuideLine Implementability Appraisal (GLIA): development of an instrument to identify obstacles to guideline implementation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005;5:23.
    1. Gustavsen M, Aamodt G, Mengshoel AM. Measuring balance in sub-acute stroke rehabilitation. Adv Physiother. 2006;8(1):15–22.
    1. Lemay JF, Nadeau S. Standing balance assessment in ASIA D paraplegic and tetraplegic participants: concurrent validity of the Berg Balance Scale. Spinal Cord. 2010;48(3):245–250.
    1. Mao HF, Hsueh IP, Tang PF, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Analysis and comparison of the psychometric properties of three balance measures for stroke patients. Stroke. 2002;33(4):1022–1027.
    1. Knorr S, Brouwer B, Garland SJ. Validity of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale in community-dwelling persons after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(6):890–896.
    1. Tsang CS, Liao LR, Chung RC, Pang MY. Psychometric properties of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) in community-dwelling individuals with chronic stroke. Phys Ther. 2013;93(8):1102–1115.
    1. Schlenstedt C, Brombacher S, Hartwigsen G, Weisser B, Moller B, Deuschl G. Comparing the Fullerton Advanced Balance Scale with the Mini-BESTest and Berg Balance Scale to assess postural control in patients with Parkinson disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(2):218–225.
    1. Donoghue D, Stokes EK. How much change is true change? The minimum detectable change of the Berg Balance Scale in elderly people. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(5):343–346.
    1. Downs S, Marquez J, Chiarelli P. The Berg Balance Scale has high intra- and inter-rater reliability but absolute reliability varies across the scale: a systematic review. J Physiother. 2013;59(2):93–99.
    1. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, Gayton D. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Can. 1989;41(6):304–311.
    1. Blum L, Korner-Bitensky N. Usefulness of the Berg Balance Scale in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2008;88(5):559–566.
    1. Pickenbrock HM, Diel A, Zapf A. A comparison between the Static Balance Test and the Berg Balance Scale: validity, reliability, and comparative resource use. Clin Rehabil. 2016;30(3):288–293.
    1. Stevenson TJ. Detecting change in patients with stroke using the Berg Balance Scale. Aust J Physiother. 2001;47(1):29–38.
    1. Salter K, Jutai J, Foley N, Teasell R. Clinical Outcome Variables Scale: a retrospective validation study in patients after stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42(7):609–613.
    1. Chinsongkram B, Chaikeeree N, Saengsirisuwan V, Viriyatharakij N, Horak FB, Boonsinsukh R. Reliability and validity of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in people with subacute stroke. Phys Ther. 2014;94(11):1632–1643.
    1. Delbaere K, Close JC, Mikolaizak AS, Sachdev PS, Brodaty H, Lord SR. The Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I). A comprehensive longitudinal validation study. Age Ageing. 2010;39(2):210–216.
    1. Leddy AL, Crowner BE, Earhart GM. Functional gait assessment and balance evaluation system test: reliability, validity, sensitivity, and specificity for identifying individuals with Parkinson disease who fall. Phys Ther. 2011;91(1):102–113.
    1. Hiengkaew V, Jitaree K, Chaiyawat P. Minimal detectable changes of the Berg Balance Scale, Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale, Timed “Up & Go” Test, gait speeds, and 2-minute walk test in individuals with chronic stroke with different degrees of ankle plantarflexor tone. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(7):1201–1208.
    1. Liaw LJ, Hsieh CL, Lo SK, Chen HM, Lee S, Lin JH. The relative and absolute reliability of two balance performance measures in chronic stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(9):656–661.
    1. Wirz M, Muller R, Bastiaenen C. Falls in persons with spinal cord injury: validity and reliability of the Berg Balance Scale. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(1):70–77.
    1. Paltamaa J, Sarasoja T, Leskinen E, Wikstrom J, Malkia E. Measuring deterioration in international classification of functioning domains of people with multiple sclerosis who are ambulatory. Phys Ther. 2008;88(2):176–190.
    1. Verheyden G, Vereeck L, Truijen S, et al. Trunk performance after stroke and the relationship with balance, gait and functional ability. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20(5):451–458.
    1. Verheyden G, Nuyens G, Nieuwboer A, Van Asch P, Ketelaer P, De Weerdt W. Reliability and validity of trunk assessment for people with multiple sclerosis. Phys Ther. 2006;86(1):66–76.
    1. Marchetti GF, Lin CC, Alghadir A, Whitney SL. Responsiveness and minimal detectable change of the dynamic gait index and functional gait index in persons with balance and vestibular disorders. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2014;38(2):119–124.
    1. Wrisley DM, Marchetti GF, Kuharsky DK, Whitney SL. Reliability, internal consistency, and validity of data obtained with the functional gait assessment. Phys Ther. 2004;84(10):906–918.
    1. Lin JH, Hsu MJ, Hsu HW, Wu HC, Hsieh CL. Psychometric comparisons of 3 functional ambulation measures for patients with stroke. Stroke. 2010;41(9):2021–2025.
    1. Nilsagård Y, Kollén L, Axelsson H, Bjerlemo B, Forsberg A. Functional Gait Assessment: reliability and validity in people with peripheral vestibular disorders. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2014;21(8):367–373.
    1. Marchetti GF, Whitney SL. Construction and validation of the 4-item dynamic gait index. Phys Ther. 2006;86(12):1651–1660.
    1. Wrisley DM, Walker ML, Echternach JL, Strasnick B. Reliability of the dynamic gait index in people with vestibular disorders. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(10):1528–1533.
    1. Huang SL, Hsieh CL, Wu RM, Tai CH, Lin CH, Lu WS. Minimal detectable change of the timed “up & go” test and the dynamic gait index in people with Parkinson disease. Phys Ther. 2011;91(1):114–121.
    1. Matsuda PN, Taylor CS, Shumway-Cook A. Evidence for the validity of the modified dynamic gait index across diagnostic groups. Phys Ther. 2014;94(7):996–1004.
    1. Leddy AL, Crowner BE, Earhart GM. Utility of the Mini-BESTest, BESTest, and BESTest sections for balance assessments in individuals with Parkinson disease. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2011;35(2):90–97.
    1. Nilsagård Y, Lundholm C, Gunnarsson LG, Dcnison E. Clinical relevance using timed walk tests and “timed up and go” testing in persons with multiple sclerosis. Physiother Res Int. 2007;12(2):105–114.
    1. Paul SS, Canning CG, Sherrington C, Fung VS. Reproducibility of measures of leg muscle power, leg muscle strength, postural sway and mobility in people with Parkinson's disease. Gait Posture. 2012;36(3):639–642.
    1. Stolwijk-Swuste JM, Beelen A, Lankhorst GJ, Nollet F; CARPA Study Group. SF36 physical functioning scale and 2-minute walk test advocated as core qualifiers to evaluate physical functioning in patients with late-onset sequelae of poliomyelitis. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(5):387–394.
    1. Ng SS, Hui-Chan CW. The timed up & go test: its reliability and association with lower-limb impairments and locomotor capacities in people with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(8):1641–1647.
    1. Powell LE, Myers AM. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1995;50A(1):M28–M34.
    1. Jonasson SB, Nilsson MH, Lexell J. Psychometric properties of four fear of falling rating scales in people with Parkinson's disease. BMC Geriatr. 2014;14:66.
    1. Salbach NM, Mayo NE, Hanley JA, Richards CL, Wood-Dauphinee S. Psychometric evaluation of the original and Canadian French version of the activities-specific balance confidence scale among people with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(12):1597–1604.
    1. Morgan MT, Friscia LA, Whitney SL, Furman JM, Sparto PJ. Reliability and validity of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) in individuals with dizziness and imbalance. Otol Neurotol. 2013;34(6):1104–1108.
    1. van Vliet R, Hoang P, Lord S, Gandevia S, Delbaere K. Falls efficacy scale-international: a cross-sectional validation in people with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(5):883–889.
    1. Scrivener K, Schurr K, Sherrington C. Responsiveness of the ten-metre walk test, Step Test and Motor Assessment Scale in inpatient care after stroke. BMC Neurol. 2014;14:129.
    1. Perera S, Mody SH, Woodman RC, Studenski SA. Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(5):743–749.
    1. Scivoletto G, Tamburella F, Laurenza L, Foti C, Ditunno JF, Molinari M. Validity and reliability of the 10-m walk test and the 6-min walk test in spinal cord injury patients. Spinal Cord. 2011;49(6):736–740.
    1. Rossier P, Wade DT. Validity and reliability comparison of 4 mobility measures in patients presenting with neurologic impairment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(1):9–13.
    1. Franchignoni F, Tesio L, Benevolo E, Ottonello M. Psychometric properties of the Rivermead Mobility Index in Italian stroke rehabilitation inpatients. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17(3):273–282.
    1. Hsueh IP, Wang CH, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Comparison of psychometric properties of three mobility measures for patients with stroke. Stroke. 2003;34(7):1741–1745.
    1. Chen HM, Hsieh CL, Sing Kai L, Liaw LJ, Chen SM, Lin JH. The test-retest reliability of 2 mobility performance tests in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21(4):347–352.
    1. Freeman J, Walters R, Ingram W, Slade A, Hobart J, Zajicek J. Evaluating change in mobility in people with multiple sclerosis: relative responsiveness of four clinical measures. Mult Scler. 2013;19(12):1632–1639.
    1. Solari A, Radice D, Manneschi L, Motti L, Montanari E. The multiple sclerosis functional composite: different practice effects in the three test components. J Neurol Sci. 2005;228(1):71–74.
    1. Larson RD, Larson DJ, Baumgartner TB, White LJ. Repeatability of the timed 25-foot walk test for individuals with multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil. 2013;27(8):719–723.
    1. Learmonth YC, Dlugonski DD, Pilutti LA, Sandroff BM, Motl RW. The reliability, precision and clinically meaningful change of walking assessments in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2013;19(13):1784–1791.
    1. Motl RW, Learmonth YC, Pilutti LA, Dlugonski D, Klaren R. Validity of minimal clinically important difference values for the multiple sclerosis walking scale-12? Eur Neurol. 2014;71(3/4):196–202.
    1. Nieuwenhuis MM, Van Tongeren H, Sorensen PS, Ravnborg M. The six spot step test: a new measurement for walking ability in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2006;12(4):495–500.
    1. Phan-Ba R, Pace A, Calay P, et al. Comparison of the timed 25-foot and the 100-meter walk as performance measures in multiple sclerosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25(7):672–679.
    1. Stellmann JP, Vettorazzi E, Poettgen J, Heesen C. A 3meter Timed Tandem Walk is an early marker of motor and cerebellar impairment in fully ambulatory MS patients. J Neurol Sci. 2014;346(1/2):99–106.
    1. Baert I, Freeman J, Smedal T, et al. Responsiveness and clinically meaningful improvement, according to disability level, of five walking measures after rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: a European multicenter study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28(7):621–631.
    1. Holland A, O'Connor RJ, Thompson AJ, Playford ED, Hobart JC. Talking the talk on walking the walk: a 12-item generic walking scale suitable for neurological conditions? J Neurol. 2006;253(12):1594–1602.
    1. Liu J, Drutz C, Kumar R, et al. Use of the six-minute walk test poststroke: is there a practice effect? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(9):1686–1692.
    1. ATS Committee on Proficiency Standards for Clinical Pulmonary Function Laboratories. ATS statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(1):111–117.
    1. Salbach NM, O'Brien KK, Brooks D, et al. Considerations for the selection of time-limited walk tests poststroke: a systematic review of test protocols and measurement properties. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2017;41(1):3–17.
    1. Lennon S, Johnson L. The modified Rivermead mobility index: validity and reliability. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22(18):833–839.
    1. Walsh JM, Barrett A, Murray D, Ryan J, Moroney J, Shannon M. The Modified Rivermead Mobility Index: reliability and convergent validity in a mixed neurological population. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(14):1133–1139.
    1. Radman L, Forsberg A, Nilsagard Y. Modified Rivermead Mobility Index: a reliable measure in people within 14 days post-stroke. Physiother Theory Pract. 2015;31(2):126–129.
    1. Duncan PW, Lai SM, Tyler D, Perera S, Reker DM, Studenski S. Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2002;33(11):2593–2599.
    1. Hilari K, Owen S, Farrelly SJ. Proxy and self-report agreement on the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78(10):1072–1075.
    1. Oczkowski C, O'Donnell M. Reliability of proxy respondents for patients with stroke: a systematic review. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2010;19(5):410–416.
    1. Elder NC, Imhoff R, Chubinski J, et al. Congruence of patient self-rating of health with family physician ratings. J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30(2):196–204.
    1. Ruble L, McGrew JH, Toland MD. Goal attainment scaling as an outcome measure in randomized controlled trials of psychosocial interventions in autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2012;42(9):1974–1983.
    1. Stolee P, Rockwood K, Fox RA, Streiner DL. The use of goal attainment scaling in a geriatric care setting. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40(6):574–578.
    1. Turner-Stokes L, Williams H, Johnson J. Goal attainment scaling: does it provide added value as a person-centred measure for evaluation of outcome in neurorehabilitation following acquired brain injury? J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(7):528–535.
    1. Khan F, Pallant JF, Turner-Stokes L. Use of goal attainment scaling in inpatient rehabilitation for persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(4):652–659.
    1. Cusick A, McIntyre S, Novak I, Lannin N, Lowe K. A comparison of goal attainment scaling and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for paediatric rehabilitation research. Pediatr Rehabil. 2006;9(2):149–157.
    1. Hurn J, Kneebone I, Cropley M. Goal setting as an outcome measure: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20(9):756–772.
    1. Harlos K, Tetroe J, Graham ID, Bird M, Robinson N. Mining the management literature for insights into implementing evidence-based change in healthcare. Healthc Policy. 2012;8(1):33–48.
    1. Field-Fote E. Towards Optimal Practice. What can we gain from assessment of patient progress with standardized outcome measures? . Accessed July 26, 2017.
    1. Paul L, Coote S, Crosbie J, et al. Core outcome measures for exercise studies in people with multiple sclerosis: recommendations from a multidisciplinary consensus meeting. Mult Scler. 2014;20(12):1641–1650.
    1. Verschuren O, Ketelaar M, Keefer D, et al. Identification of a core set of exercise tests for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy: a Delphi survey of researchers and clinicians. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011;53(5):449–456.
    1. Grill E, Bronstein A, Furman J, Zee DS, Muller M. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for patients with vertigo, dizziness and balance disorders. J Vestib Res. 2012;22(5/6):261–271.
    1. Winser SJ, Smith C, Hale LA, Claydon LS, Whitney SL. Balance outcome measures in cerebellar ataxia: a Delphi survey. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(2):165–170.
    1. Sibley KM, Howe T, Lamb SE, et al. Recommendations for a core outcome set for measuring standing balance in adult populations: a consensus-based approach. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0120568.
    1. Herrmann KH, Kirchberger I, Stucki G, Cieza A. The comprehensive ICF core sets for spinal cord injury from the perspective of physical therapists: a worldwide validation study using the Delphi technique. Spinal Cord. 2011;49(4):502–514.
    1. Lennon S. Physiotherapy practice in stroke rehabilitation: a survey. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(9):455–461.
    1. Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.
    1. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–1367.
    1. Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, Walker E, Watson P, Thomson R. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341:c5146.
    1. Government of Canada. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act. . Accessed July 27, 2017.
    1. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53.
    1. Hudon A, Gervais MJ, Hunt M. The contribution of conceptual frameworks to knowledge translation interventions in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2015;95(4):630–639.
    1. Levac D, Glegg SMN, Camden C, Rivard LM, Missiuna C. Best practice recommendations for the development, implementation, and evaluation of online knowledge translation resources in rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2015;95(4):648–662.
    1. Zidarov D, Thomas A, Poissant L. Knowledge translation in physical therapy: from theory to practice. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(18):1571–1577.
    1. Field B, Booth A, Ilott I, Gerrish K. Using the Knowledge to Action Framework in practice: a citation analysis and systematic review. Implement Sci. 2014;9:172.
    1. Moulding NT, Silagy CA, Weller DP. A framework for effective management of change in clinical practice: dissemination and implementation of clinical practice guidelines. Qual Health Care. 1999;8(3):177–183.
    1. Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID. Knowledge Translation in Health Care. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
    1. Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81(12, suppl 2):S15–S20.
    1. Post MW. What to do with “moderate” reliability and validity coefficients? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(7):1051–1052.
    1. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(14):i–iv, 1–74.
    1. Colquhoun HL, Lamontagne ME, Duncan EA, Fiander M, Champagne C, Grimshaw JM. A systematic review of interventions to increase the use of standardized outcome measures by rehabilitation professionals. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(3):299–309.
    1. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6):CD000259.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren