Do patient-reported outcome measures used in assessing outcomes in rehabilitation after hip and knee arthroplasty capture issues relavent to patients? Results of a systematic review of ICF liking process

Maria Alviar, John Olver, Caroline Anne Brand, Thomas Hale, Fary Khan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the contents of patient-reported instruments used in hip and knee arthroplasty rehabilitation with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Methods: A search of PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Registry, SCOPUS and PEDro identified patient-reported outcome instruments. The meaningful concepts extracted from the instruments were linked to the ICF based on established linking rules and compared with the osteoarthritis core set. The number of concepts per item, the breadth, and the depth of coverage of instruments in relation to the ICF were determined through calculation of content density, bandwidth per ICF component, and content diversity, respectively. Results: Eight instruments were reviewed and 375 meaningful concepts were linked to the ICF. Activity and participation had the most representation (61 ). The Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Knee Injury and OsteoA-arthritis Outcome Score had the widest coverage (bandwidth) for body functions (1.62 , 1.22 , respectively). The Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales had the broadest bandwidth (8.4 ) for activity and participation. All tools addressed general mobility but lacked coverage in a??drivinga??, a??assisting othersa??, a??interpersonal relationshipsa?? and a??community lifea??. The majority of tools did not address environmental factors. Conclusion: Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty rehabilitation do not fully address relevant areas of activity, participation and environment, suggesting limited clinical applicability.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)374 - 381
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume43
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Cite this