Search

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Pediatric physical therapists assess the quantity and quality of children's motor skills. Several quantitative motor tests are currently available, but a concise measurement tool of observable movement quality (OMQ) is lacking. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop an OMQ measurement tool for children from the perspective of pediatric physical therapists. DESIGN: A qualitative, 3-phase study involving pediatric physical therapists was conducted. METHODS: The first phase consisted of 7 semistructured interviews. The second phase comprised a structured meeting using a nominal group technique, with the interviewees required to identify the most relevant OMQ aspects. The third phase comprised a Delphi technique involving 61 pediatric physical therapy experts with the aim of achieving at least 80% agreement on relevance, terminology, and definitions of OMQ aspects. RESULTS: Across all 3 phases, 32 aspects based on different theoretical constructs were considered. Fifteen aspects were included in the measurement. The pediatric physical therapy experts achieved at least 80% agreement on the definitions of 14 OMQ aspects: automated movements, asymmetry in movements, variation in movements, appropriate gross motor movements, fluency of movements, reduced muscle tone, increased muscle tone, involuntary movements, accuracy, slow/delayed movements, accelerated/abrupt movements, tremors, strength regulation, and stereotyped movements. The definition of appropriate fine motor movements achieved 75% agreement. This aspect was included because gross and fine motor movements are complementary. The aspects were scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with a total score ranging from 15 to 75 and with a higher score indicating a better OMQ. CONCLUSION: The OMQ scale, a concise measurement tool with 15 defined aspects, was developed. Content validity was obtained, but before the OMQ scale can be used in clinical practice, studies on reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness are needed. 01 april 2012

BackgroundVarious guidelines for the management of low back pain have been developed to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of care. Evidence that guideline-adherent care results in better health outcomes, however, is not conclusive.ObjectiveThe main objective of this study was to assess whether a higher percentage of adherence to the Dutch physical and manual therapy guidelines for low back pain is related to improved outcomes. The study further explored whether this relationship differs for the individual steps of the process of care and for distinct subgroups of patients.DesignThis was an observational prospective cohort study (2005–2006) in the Netherlands that included a sample of 61 private practice therapists and 145 patients.MethodsTherapists recorded the process of care and the number of treatment sessions in Web-based patient files. Guideline adherence was assessed using quality indicators. Physical functioning was measured by the Dutch version of the Quebec Back Pain and Disability Scale, and average pain was measured with a visual analog scale. Relationships between the percentage of guideline adherence and outcomes of care were evaluated with regression analyses.ResultsHigher percentages of adherence were associated with fewer functional limitations (β=−0.21, P=.023) and fewer treatment sessions (β=−0.27, P=.005).LimitationsThe relatively small self-selected sample might limit external validity, but it is not expected that the small sample greatly influenced the internal validity of the study. Larger samples are required to enable adequate subgroup analyses.ConclusionsThe results indicate that higher percentages of guideline adherence are related to better improvement of physical functioning and to a lower utilization of care. A proper assessment of the relationship between the process of physical therapy care and outcomes may require a comprehensive set of process indicators to measure guideline adherence.

Background and Purpose. An active strategy was developed for the implementation of the clinical guidelines on physical therapy for patients with low back pain. The effect of this strategy on patients' physical functioning, coping strategy, and beliefs regarding their low back pain was studied. Subjects. One hundred thirteen primary care physical therapists treated a total of 500 patients. Methods. The physical therapists were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups. The control group received the guidelines by mail (standard passive method of dissemination). The intervention group, in contrast, received an additional active training strategy consisting of 2 sessions with education, group discussion, role playing, feedback, and reminders. Patients with low back pain, treated by the participating therapists, completed questionnaires on physical functioning, pain, sick leave, coping, and beliefs. Results. Physical functioning and pain in the 2 groups improved substantially in the first 12 weeks. Multilevel longitudinal analysis showed no differences between the 2 groups on any outcome measure during follow-up. Discussion and Conclusion. The authors found no additional benefit to applying an active strategy to implement the physical therapy guidelines for patients with low back pain. Active implementation strategies are not recommended if patient outcomes are to be improved.

Background and Purpose. There is no consensus about the indication for exercises for patients with intermittent claudication of the lower extremity and the characteristics of an exercise program to improve walking distance. The effect of walking is assessed by a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Methods. Literature databases were accessed using the relevant key words. The references of identified articles were screened for additional studies. A checklist was developed to screen the studies with respect to the variables of interest. A methodological assessment form was developed to assess the methodological quality of the studies (maximum possible score: 100). Results. Eighty-two articles were identified, of which 21 studies were considered relevant for inclusion in the review. Following the analysis of the articles, 11 studies were for various reasons eliminated, leaving 10 studies for the systematic review. The score for methodological quality of the studies ranged from 47 to 75 (X=62.5, SD=8.5). Percentage of improvement in walking distance or time ranged from 28% to 210% (X=105%, SD=55.8%). Conclusion and Discussion. All studies showed that walking exercises improved walking distance in patients with intermittent claudication. Further research is needed to determine the optimal exercise program, the effect of adherence to the treatment protocol, and the duration of the effects following a formal exercise program.

Background and Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of assessments of impairments and disabilities. Subjects and Methods. One physical therapist's assessments were examined for intraobserver reliability. Judgments of two pairs of therapists were used to examine interobserver reliability. Reliability was assessed by Cohen's kappa. Results. Of the 42 impairments and disabilities assessed by the physical therapist in the intraobserver reliability study, kappa values could be calculated for 33 items. For 31 items (94%), kappa values ranged from .40 to .91, and 2 items (6%) had kappa values of less than .40. To determine interobserver reliability, 37 items were assessed in one practice. Kappa values could be calculated for 34 items, with 30 items (88%) having kappa values ranging from .41 to .80 and 4 items (12%) showing “poor” agreement. In the second practice, 47 items were assessed for interobserver reliability. Kappa values could be calculated for 40 items, with 11 items (27.5%) having kappa values ranging from .41 to .84. Poor agreement was shown for the remaining 29 items (72.5%). Conclusion and Discussion. Assessments of impairments and disabilities are potentially reliable. The differences between practices of the interobserver reliability study can be explained by the fact that one of the therapists did not receive training in the use of the assessment form. More generalizable conclusions will require further study with more subjects and therapists.