The Brazilian Portuguese version of the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS-Br) showed acceptable reliability, validity and responsiveness in chronic low back pain

Mariana Romano de Lira, Anamaria Siriani de Oliveira, Roberta Aniceto França, Ana Claudia Pereira, Emma L Godfrey, Thais Cristina Chaves, Mariana Romano de Lira, Anamaria Siriani de Oliveira, Roberta Aniceto França, Ana Claudia Pereira, Emma L Godfrey, Thais Cristina Chaves

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to adapt the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS) into Brazilian Portuguese and evaluate its measurement properties, given as reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with non-specific Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP).

Methods: A total of 108 patients with a mean age of 46.62 years (SD = 9.98) and CLBP participated in this longitudinal study. Participants were oriented on undertaking the prescribed exercises in the first session, and adherence behavior was assessed after 1 week, and finally reassessed after 2 weeks (test-retest reliability). Three weeks after the first assessment, they were invited again to full fill the EARS (responsiveness). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) and Cronbach's α were used to assess test-retest reliability and internal consistency, respectively. Spearman's correlation and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to assess construct validity, and the Receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve (AUC) were used to analyze responsiveness.

Results: The one-factor EARS-Br (adherence behavior) structure with 6 items showed acceptable fit indexes (comparative fit index and goodness of fit index> 0.90 and root-mean-square error of approximation< 0.08). The EARS-Br scale showed acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.88) and excellent reliability (ICC = 0.91 [95% CI 0.86-0.94]). Mild to moderate correlations were observed between EARS-Br total score vs. disability, pain catastrophizing, depression/anxiety, fear-avoidance and pain intensity. A Minimally Important Change (MIC) of 5.5 in the EARS-Br total score was considered as a meaningful change in the adherence behavior (AUC = 0.82). Moderate accuracy (AUC = 0.89) was obtained for a 17/24 total EARS cutoff score after home exercise was prescribed. The sensitivity and specificity were also acceptable (greater than 80%).

Conclusion: Our results demonstrated acceptable EARS-Br reliability, validity, and responsiveness for patients with CLBP. A final score of 17/24 on EARS after the prescription of home-exercise could be used as a cut-off for an acceptable adherence behavior associated with improvement in patient outcomes.

Keywords: Adherence; Chronic low Back pain; Prescribed exercise; Responsiveness; Validity studies.

Conflict of interest statement

Not Applicable.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the process of cross-cultural adaptation to Brazilian Portuguese of the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS) in five stages: I) initial translation into Brazilian Portuguese – original version in British English was translated into Portuguese by two translators fluent in English and native speakers of Portuguese - a layman and an expert in health sciences, who worked independently; II) synthesis of translations – both translations were synthesized through consensus; III) back-translation into the original language – two translators fluent in Portuguese and native English speakers back-translated the synthetized version into English. They worked independently and both were blinded to the original version; IV) specialist committee – meeting with translators (n = 4), physiotherapists (n = 6) and PhDs and researchers with expertise in exercise (n = 4) to solve possible disagreements in translation, and create a pre-final version of EARS-Br and V) pre-testing phase – in which the pre-final version of the questionnaire was administered to patients with CLBP (n = 25) and assessed regarding comprehensibility of the instrument controlled through an open field form and cognitive interviews. Participants were encouraged to report their possible doubts, impressions of each item, response options, header items, instructions, and instrument layout
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flowchart showing sample distribution through EARS-Br validation study phases
Figs. 3A and 3B
Figs. 3A and 3B
Path diagram showing factor structure of the EARS-Br (Fig. A) and EARS-Br reasons for adherence (Fig. B) describing the factor loadings for each item. Q = questions. e = error. EARSbehavior = EARS. EARSreasons = EARS reasons for adherence or EARS-RA
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Receiver Operating Curves (ROC) describing sensitivity and specificity values for responsiveness analysis of the Brazilian version of the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS-Br). A: Minimally Important Change for EARS-Br considering as reference Global Perceived Effect (GPE), comparing EARS score longitudinally. B. Cut-off score for EARS-Br for the final assessment after the exercise program considering as reference Global Perceived Effect (GPE)

References

    1. Frost R, Levati S, McClurg D, Brady M, Williams B. What Adherence Measures Should Be Used in Trials of Home-Based Rehabilitation Interventions? A Systematic Review of the Validity, Reliability, and Acceptability of Measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017; 98(6):1241–1256.e45.
    1. Bollen JC, Dean SG, Siegert RJ, Howe TE, Goodwin V. A systematic review of measures of self-reported adherence to unsupervised home-based rehabilitation exercise programmes, and their psychometric properties. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005044. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005044.
    1. Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, Hoy D, Karppinen J, Pransky G, Sieper J, Smeets RJ, Underwood M; Lancet Low Back Pain Series Working Group. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018, 9;391(10137):2356–2367.
    1. Maher C, Underwood M, Buchbinder R. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 2017, 18;389(10070):736–747.
    1. Michaleff ZA, Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Evans R, Broderick C, Henschke N. Low back pain in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of conservative interventions. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:2046–2058. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3461-1.
    1. Qaseem A1, Wilt TJ, McLean RM, Forciea MA; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017; 166: 514–530.
    1. Stochkendahl MJ, Kjaer P, Hartvigsen J, Kongsted A, Aaboe J, Andersen M, Andersen MØ, Fournier G, Højgaard B, Jensen MB, Jensen LD, Karbo T, Kirkeskov L, Melbye M, Morsel-Carlsen L, Nordsteen J, Palsson TS, Rasti Z, Silbye PF, Steiness MZ, Tarp S, Vaagholt M. National Clinical Guidelines for non-surgical treatment of patients with recent onset low back pain or lumbar radiculopathy. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(1):60–75. doi: 10.1007/s00586-017-5099-2.
    1. Savigny P, Watson P, Underwood M; Guideline Development Group. Early management of persistent non-specific low back pain: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2009; 4;338:b1805.
    1. Geneen LJ, Moore RA, Clarke C, Martin D, Colvin LA, Smith BH. Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2017(4):CD011279.
    1. Newman-Beinart A, Norton S, Dowling D, Gavriloff D, Vari C, Weinman JA, Godfrey EL. The development and initial psychometric evaluation of a measure assessing adherence to prescribed exercise: the exercise adherence rating scale (EARS) Physiotherapy. 2017;103(2):180–185. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2016.11.001.
    1. Meade LB, Bearne LM, Godfrey EL. Comprehension and face validity of the exercise adherence rating scale in patients with persistent musculoskeletal pain. Musculoskeletal Care. 2018;16(3):409–412. doi: 10.1002/msc.1240.
    1. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;6:1417–1432. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N.
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25(24):3186–3191. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
    1. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–1157. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3.
    1. Deyo RA, Dworkin SF, Amtmann D, Andersson G, Borenstein D, Carragee E, Carrino J, Chou R, Cook K, DeLitto A, Goertz C, Khalsa P, Loeser J, Mackey S, Panagis J, Rainville J, Tosteson T, Turk D, Von Korff M, Weiner DK. Focus article: report of the NIH task force on research standards for chronic low Back pain. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(10):2028–2045. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3540-3.
    1. Murden RA, McRae TD, Kaner S, Bucknam ME. Mini-mental state exam scores vary with education in blacks and whites. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:149–155. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01617.x.
    1. Nicholas MK. Self-efficacy and chronic pain. Paper presented at the annual conference British Psychological Society, St. Andrews, Scotland: In; 1989.
    1. Jamir Sardá Jr, Nicholas MK, Pimenta CAM, Asghari A. Pain-related self-efficacy beliefs in a Brazilian chronic pain patient sample: a psychometric analysis. Stress and Health. 2007; 23:185–190.
    1. Abreu AM, Faria CDCM, Cardoso SMV, Teixeira-Salmela LFT. The Brazilian version of the fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire. Cad Saúde Pública. 2008;24(3):615–623. doi: 10.1590/S0102-311X2008000300015.
    1. Sehn F, Chachamovich E, Vidor LP, Dall-Agnol L, de Souza IC, Torres IL, Fregni F, Caumo W. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the pain catastrophizing scale. Pain Med. 2012;13(1):1425–1435. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2012.01492.x.
    1. Pais-Ribeiro J, Silva I, Ferreira T, Martins A, Meneses R, Baltar M. Validation study of a Portuguese version of the hospital anxiety and depression scale. Psychol Health Med. 2007;12(2):225–235. doi: 10.1080/13548500500524088.
    1. Nusbaum L, Natour J, Ferraz MB, Goldenberg J. Translation, adaptation and validation of the Roland-Morris questionnaire - Brazil Roland-Morris. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2001;34:203–210. doi: 10.1590/S0100-879X2001000200007.
    1. Costa LOP, Maher CG, Latimer J, Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML, Pozzi GC, Freitas LM. Clinimetric testing of three self-report outcome measures for low Back pain patients in Brazil which one is the best? Spine. 2008;33(22):2459–2463. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181849dbe.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
    1. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008, 1;33(1):90–4.
    1. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB. COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) user manual. 2018.
    1. Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: new developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychol Assess. 2019;31(12):1412–1427. doi: 10.1037/pas0000626.
    1. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006; 22;4:54.
    1. Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17(3):163–170. doi: 10.1179/jmt.2009.17.3.163.
    1. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Hoboken: New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. 2003.
    1. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:231–240.
    1. Zygmont C, Smith MR. Robust factor analysis in the presence of normality violations, missing data, and outliers: empirical questions and possible solutions. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology. 2014;10(1):40–55. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.10.1.p040.
    1. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge; 2010.
    1. Nevitt J, Hancock GR. Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Model. 2001;8:353–377. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_2.
    1. Bollen KA, Stine RA. Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res. 1992;21:205–229. doi: 10.1177/0049124192021002004.
    1. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: test of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Res-Online. 2003;8:23–74.
    1. Kaiser HF. The application of eletronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement Thousand Oaks. 1960;20:141–151. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116.
    1. Dancey CP, Reidy J. Statistics without maths for psychology: using SPSS for windows. New York: Prentice Hall; 2004.
    1. Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr. 2007;96(5):644–647. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00178.x.
    1. Jack K, McLean SM, Moffett JK, Gardiner E. Barriers to treatment adherence in physiotherapy outpatient clinics: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2010;15(3):220–228. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2009.12.004.
    1. Newman-Beinart A, Goodchild CE, Weinman JA, Ayis S, Godfrey EL. Individual and intervention related factors associated with adherence to home exercise in chronic low back pain: a systematic review. Spine J. 2013;13(12):1940–1950. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.027.
    1. Picha KJ, Jochimsen KN, Heebner NR, Abt JP, Usher EL, Capilouto G, Uhl TL. Measurements of self-efficacy in musculoskeletal rehabilitation: a systematic review. Musculoskeletal Care. 2018;16(4):471–488. doi: 10.1002/msc.1362.
    1. Picha KJ, Lester M, Heebner NR, Abt JP, Usher EL, Capilouto G, Uhl TL. The self-efficacy for home exercise programs scale: development and psychometric properties. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019;49(9):647–655. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2019.8779.
    1. Moseley GL, Butler DS. Fifteen years of explaining pain: the past, present, and future. J Pain. 2015;16(9):807–813. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.05.005.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren