Correlation between functional disability and quality of life in patients with adhesive capsulitis

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the correlation between functional disability and quality of life of patients with adhesive capsulitis. METHODS: Two instruments (WHOQOL-BREF and DASH) were applied to evaluate the quality of life and functional capacity of patients with adhesive capsulitis. Inclusion criteria were age between 35 and 75 years old and achievement of shoulder imaging. Each domain of the WHOQOL-BREF was correlated with DASH. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used for parametric variables and Spearman's correlation coefficient was used when at least one variable had a non-normal distribution. The level of significance was p <0.05. RESULTS: Forty three patients with mean age of 54.7 years old were evaluated. The mean values found in the physical, psychological, social and environmental domains of the WHOQOL-BREF and DASH were 45.3, 63.9, 68.2, 60.2 and 61.6, respectively. A moderate negative correlation was found between DASH and the physical domain of WHOQOL-BREF (r= - 0.583, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The only domain where WHOQOL-BREF correlates with DASH is the physical domain, suggesting that measures to promote the improvement of functional capacity may lead to better quality of life of patients with adhesive capsulitis. Level of Evidence IV, Prospective Study.

Health-related quality of life among persons with physical disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…None of the studies estimated the needed sample size nor selected the sample randomly. In 70% of the cases, participants were recruited by professionals in the health care field (Choi et al, 2013;Dajpratham & Kongkasuwan, 2011;Estrella-Castillo & Gómez-de-Regil, 2016;Jeong et al, 2012;Lucas-Carrasco et al, 2011;Rassi-Fernandes, 2015;Stefane et al, 2013); in 20% they were recruited through databases of official organizations that serve people with disabilities (Badenhorst et al, 2018;Phillips et al, 2009) and in 10% potential participants were members of an association and drawn from the medical records of a hospital (Chang et al, 2012).…”

“…All the studies established clear inclusion criteria and 80% of the studies specified exclusion criteria (Badenhorst et al, 2018;Choi et al, 2013;Dajpratham & Kongkasuwan, 2011;Estrella-Castillo & Gómez-de-Regil, 2016;Jeong et al, 2012;Lucas-Carrasco et al, 2011;Rassi-Fernandes, 2015;Stefane et al, 2013), while 20% did not explicitly state them (Chang et al, 2012;Phillips et al, 2009).…”

“…The percentage of people who agreed to participate was calculated based on the data provided. In 60% of the studies it was possible to calculate the response rate (Badenhorst et al, 2018;Chang et al, 2012;Choi et al, 2013;88 Estrella-Castillo & Gómez- de-Regil, 2016;Jeong et al, 2012;Phillips et al, 2009), but 40% did not provide this data (Dajpratham & Kongkasuwan, 2011;Lucas-Carrasco et al, 2011;Rassi-Fernandes, 2015;Stefane et al, 2013). The response rate varied between 52% (Phillips et al, 2009) and 95% (Jeong et al, 2012).…”

“…Ninety percent of the studies reported obtaining ethical approval and informed consent (Badenhorst et al, 2018;Chang et al, 2012;Choi et al, 2013;Dajpratham & Kongkasuwan, 2011;Estrella-Castillo & Gómez-de-Regil, 2016;Jeong et al, 2012;Lucas-Carrasco et al, 2011;Phillips et al, 2009; Rassi-Fernandes, 2015) while 10% did not report on this aspect (Stefane et al, 2013). Finally, 90% of the studies used instruments to assess disability (Badenhorst et al, 2018;Chang et al, 2012;Choi et al, 2013;Rassi-Fernandes, 2015;Dajpratham & Kongkasuwan, 2011;Jeong et al, 2012;Lucas-Carrasco et al, 2011;Phillips et al, 2009;Stefane et al, 2013), while 10% used other appropriate diagnostic criteria (Estrella-Castillo & Gómez-de-Regil, 2016).…”

“…The score for the studies on the RTI (Viswanathan et al, 2013) ranged from 4/4 (low risk of bias on all items: Badenhorst et al, 2018;Choi et al, 2013;Daijpratham et al, 2011;Jeong et al, 2012;Stefane et al 2013) to 3/4 (low risk of bias on 3/4 items evaluated: Chang et al, 2012;Estrella-Castillo & Gomez-de-Regil, 2016;Lucas-Carrasco et al, 2011;Phillips et al, 2009;Rassi-Fernandes, 2015). The risk of bias assessment for each of the studies is shown in Table 2.…”