Monitoring the change: Current trends in outcome measure usage in physiotherapy

Abrams, Daniel A.; Davidson, Megan; Harrick, Julie; Harcourt, Peter; Zylinski, Maria; Clancy, Jo

doi:10.1016/j.math.2005.02.003

Cited by 113 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

116

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Two of the studies were in an outpatient pediatric setting (28,34). Seven of the studies targeted physiotherapists only (1,28,29,31,(33)(34)(35) , one study occurred with community mental health professions (unspecified but occupational therapy assumed) (25), one study each targeted occupational therapists only (30) and prosthetists only (27), and one study involved physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech-language pathologists (32). While nine studies reported various provider characteristics such as age, gender, years of experience, work location, and caseload levels, one study reported only the professional discipline of the providers (33), and one study reported only 'mental health providers' without specifying any further provider characteristics (25).…”

Section: Study Descriptorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only one of the studies had strong ratings for any of the six components that made up the overall quality rating (31). Of the nine studies that were rated as weak, one was weak in all categories (30) and the other eight were weak in either four or five of the six categories (1,25,(27)(28)(29)(32)(33)(34). One of the studies that had on overall rating of moderate (31) used an experimental design with randomization but was limited by a small sample size, i.e.…”

Section: Study Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the remaining seven that did not provide full information on the dose of the intervention, four (28,30,34,35) provided some but not all information (ie. the length of time of the workshop but not how many reminders were provided) (35), and three studies reported no details on the dose of the intervention (1,25,27). Only one of the studies did not measure use rates, measuring confidence in using measures (27).…”

Section: Intervention Descriptorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only one of the studies did not measure use rates, measuring confidence in using measures (27). Of the other ten studies that measured use rates, three also measured attitudes towards measures (1,29,35) and two also measured knowledge of measures (28,34).…”

Section: Intervention Descriptorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of interventions to increase the use of standardized outcome measures by rehabilitation professionals

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Objective: To determine the types and effectiveness of interventions to increase the knowledge about, attitudes towards, and use of standardized outcome measures in rehabilitation professionals. Data Sources: An electronic search using Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Ergonomics Abstracts, Sports Discus. The search is current to February 2016. Study Selection: All study designs testing interventions were included as were all provider and patient types. Two reviewers independently conducted a title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review. Data extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted a priori variables and used consensus for disagreements. Quality assessment was conducted using the Assessment of Quantitative Studies published by the Effective Public Health Practice Group. Data Synthesis: We identified 11 studies involving at least 1200 providers. Nine of the studies showed improvements in outcome measure use rates but only three of these studies used an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Eight of the studies used an educational approach in the intervention and three used audit and feedback. Poor intervention description and quality of studies limited recommendations. Conclusions: Increased attention to testing interventions focused on known barriers, matched to behavior change techniques, and with stronger designs is warranted. We identified 11 studies involving at least 1200 providers. Nine of the studies showed improvements in outcome measure use rates but only three of these studies used an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Eight of the studies used an educational approach in the intervention and three used audit and feedback. Poor intervention description and quality of studies limited recommendations. Conclusions: Increased attention to testing interventions focused on known barriers, matched to behavior change techniques, and with stronger designs is warranted.

show abstract

Section: Study Descriptorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intervention Descriptorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intervention Descriptorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of interventions to increase the use of standardized outcome measures by rehabilitation professionals

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent survey of 253 Canadian occupational therapists revealed that only 27 percent reported using standardized assessments of unilateral spatial neglect [8], and a qualitative interview with 12 Swedish occupational therapists working with individuals with brain injury revealed that the therapists were reluctant to use standardized assessments [9]. In a survey of 300 Canadian physiotherapists conducted by Abrams et al, 90 percent agreed that "health professionals should monitor the outcome of their treatment using reliable and valid tools," yet less than 30 percent reported routine use of standardized assessments [10]. Furthermore, Kay et al reported that in spite of concerted educational efforts to motivate therapists to use published outcomes scales, 6 years later, less than half of the therapists incorporated published scales into practice [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translating measurement findings into rehabilitation practice: An example using Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity with patients following stroke

Velozo¹,

Woodbury²

2011

JRRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Standardized assessments are critical for advancing clinical rehabilitation, yet assessment scores often provide little information for rehabilitation treatment planning. A keyform recovery map is an innovative way for a therapist to record patient responses to standardized assessment items. The form enables a therapist to view the specific items that a patient can or cannot perform. This information can assist a therapist in tailoring treatments to a patient's individual ability level. We demonstrate how a keyform recovery map can be used to inform clinical treatment planning for individuals with stroke-related upper-limb motor impairment. A keyform map of poststroke upper-limb recovery defined by items of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) was generated by a previously published Rasch analysis. Three individuals with stroke enrolled in a separate research study were randomly selected from each of the three impairment strata of the FMA-UE. Their performance on each item was displayed on the FMA-UE keyform. The forms directly connected qualitative descriptions of patients' motor ability to assessment measures, thereby suggesting appropriate shorter and longer term rehabilitation goals. This study demonstrates how measurement theory can be used to translate a standardized assessment into a useful, evidence-based tool for making clinical practice decisions.

show abstract

Facilitators and barriers to using neurological outcome measures in developed and developing countries

Demers

Blanchette

Mullick

et al. 2018

Physiotherapy Res Intl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To identify and compare factors influencing the use of standardized outcome measures by neurological physical therapists working in representative developed (Canada) and developing (India) countries.Methods: A self-administered web-based questionnaire on facilitators and barriers to using neurological outcome measures was sent by email to neurological physical therapists in Canada and India. Frequencies of responses to each question were computed. Differences between countries were assessed using two-proportion z test.Results: Of 317 respondents, the use of standardized outcome measures was higher for Indian (96.7%) compared with Canadian physical therapists (89.2%). Among the most highly reported facilitators, three were common for both countries (known validity and reliability, outcome measures learned in professional training, and recommended in clinical practice guidelines). Three highly reported barriers were also common for India and Canada (lack of time, relying on judgement for clinical decisions, and unavailability of the assessment tools). Nevertheless, there were differences in the percentages of barriers and facilitators between countries. Conclusion:Understanding the factors influencing the uptake of outcome measures among neurological physical therapists working in a developed (Canada) and a developing country (India) can help identify whether strategies should or should not be modified to facilitate knowledge translation in different geographical, professional, or social contexts.

show abstract

Monitoring the change: Current trends in outcome measure usage in physiotherapy

Cited by 113 publications

References 12 publications

A systematic review of interventions to increase the use of standardized outcome measures by rehabilitation professionals

A systematic review of interventions to increase the use of standardized outcome measures by rehabilitation professionals

Translating measurement findings into rehabilitation practice: An example using Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity with patients following stroke

Facilitators and barriers to using neurological outcome measures in developed and developing countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About