Search

Rob AB Oostendorp,1– 4 JW Hans Elvers,5,6 Emiel van Trijffel,7,8 Geert M Rutten,9,10 Gwendolyne GM Scholten-Peeters,11 Marcel Heijmans,4 Erik Hendriks,12,13 Emilia Mikolajewska,14,15 Margot De Kooning,3,16 Marjan Laekeman,17,18 Jo Nijs,3,16,19 Nathalie Roussel,20 Han Samwel21 1Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 2Department of Manual Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; 3Pain in Motion International Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; 4Practice Physiotherapy and Manual Therapy, Heeswijk-Dinther, the Netherlands; 5Department of Public Health and Research, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 6Department of Allied Health Care, Methodological Health-Skilled Institute, Beuningen, the Netherlands; 7Department of Master Education, SOMT University of Physiotherapy, Amersfoort, the Netherlands; 8Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; 9Institute of Health Studies, Faculty of Health and Social Studies, HAN University of Applied Science, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 10Campus Venlo, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 11Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioral and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 12Department of Epidemiology, Center of Evidence Based Physiotherapy, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 13Practice Physiotherapy ‘Maasstaete, Druten, the Netherlands; 14Department of Physiotherapy, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland; 15Neurocognitive Laboratory, Centre for Modern Interdisciplinary Technologies, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland; 16Department of Physical Medicine and Physiotherapy, University Hospital Brussels, Brussels, Belgium; 17Department of Nursing Sciences, Ph.D.-Kolleg, Faculty of Health, University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany; 18Department of Physiological Psychology, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany; 19Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; 20Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences (MOVANT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; 21Revalis Pain Rehabilitation Centre, S Hertogenbosch, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Rob AB OostendorpScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, p/a Oude Kleefsebaan 325, AT Berg En Dal 6572, Nijmegen, the NetherlandsTel +31 246423419Email oostendorp.rob@gmail.comBackground: Whiplash-associated disorders (WADs) constitute a state of health characterized by a wide diversity of symptoms as a result of impairments of functions, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) seem appropriate when describing and evaluating the health status of patients with WAD.Aim: To measure the use of PROMs and PROs as quality indicators in clinical reasoning, and to analyze and evaluate pre- and post-treatment ‘pain intensity’ and ‘functioning’, and for ‘perceived improvement’ in patients with WAD in primary care physiotherapy practice by year of referral, with the phase after accident and prognostic health profile embedded in the clinical reasoning process.Materials and Methods: Data were collected over a period of 10 years. Pain intensity, functioning, and perceived improvement were measured using the Visual Analogue Scale for Pain (VAS-P), the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the Global Perceived Effect scale (GPE). Pre- and post-treatment mean differences were tested for statistical significance and compared to minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Effect sizes were expressed as Cohen’s d. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to explore independent associations of year of referral, phase after the accident, and the patient’s prognostic health profile with post-treatment pain intensity and functioning.Results: A consecutive sample of 523 patients was included. Pre- and post-treatment mean differences on VAS-P and NDI were statistically significant (P< 0.000) and clinically relevant, with ‘large’ effect sizes for pain intensity and functioning. MCIDs were achieved by 80% for VAS-P and for 60% for NDI. Year of referral and phase after the accident were independently associated with worse post-treatment functioning. About half of the patients (n=241 [46.1%]) perceived themselves as improved.Conclusion: The PROMs and PROs pain intensity, functioning and perceived improvement were integrated as quality indicators in the physiotherapy clinical reasoning process for patients with WAD. Significant differences in pain intensity and functioning were found but were unrelated to year of referral, phase after whiplash-related injury or prognostic health profile. The MCID VAS-P scores did not differ depending on experienced pain.Keywords: whiplash-Associated Disorders, neck pain, physiotherapy, patient-reported outcomes measures, routinely collected data

Rob AB Oostendorp, 1–4 JW Hans Elvers, 5, 6 Emiel van Trijffel, 7, 8 Geert M Rutten, 9, 10 Gwendolyne GM Scholten–Peeters, 11 Marcel Heijmans, 4 Erik Hendriks, 12, 13 Emilia Mikolajewska, 14, 15 Margot De Kooning, 3, 16 Marjan Laekeman, 17 Jo Nijs, 3, 16 Nathalie Roussel, 18 Han Samwel 19 1Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 2Department of Manual Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; 3Pain in Motion International Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; 4Practice Physiotherapy and Manual Therapy, Heeswijk-Dinther, the Netherlands; 5Department of Public Health and Research, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 6Methodological Health-Skilled Institute, Beuningen, the Netherlands; 7SOMT University of Physiotherapy, Amersfoort, the Netherlands; 8Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; 9Institute of Health Studies, Faculty of Health and Social Studies, HAN University of Applied Science, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 10Faculty of Science and Engineering, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 11Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioral and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Free University Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 12Department of Epidemiology, Center of Evidence Based Physiotherapy, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 13Practice Physiotherapy ‘Klepperheide’, Druten, the Netherlands; 14Department of Physiotherapy, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus Univerisity, Toruń, Poland; 15Neurocognitive Laboratory, Centre for Modern Interdisciplinary Technologies, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland; 16Department of Physical Medicine and Physiotherapy, University Hospital Brussels, Brussels, Belgium; 17Department of Nursing Sciences, Ph.D.-Kolleg, Faculty of Health, University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany; 18Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences (MOVANT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; 19Revalis Pain Rehabilitation Centre, ‘s Hertogenbosch, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Rob AB OostendorpScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, p/a Oude Kleefsebaan 325, Berg en Dal 6572 AT, the NetherlandsTel +31 2464234219Email oostendorp.rob@gmail.comBackground: Quality indicators (QIs) are measurable elements of practice performance and may relate to context, process, outcome and structure. A valid set of QIs have been developed, reflecting the clinical reasoning used in primary care physiotherapy for patients with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). Donabedian’s model postulates relationships between the constructs of quality of care, acting in a virtuous circle.Aim: To explore the relative strengths of the relationships between context, process, and outcome indicators in the assessment of primary care physiotherapy in patients with WAD.Materials and Methods: Data on WAD patients (N=810) were collected over a period of 16 years in primary care physiotherapy practices by means of patients records. This routinely collected dataset (RCD-WAD) was classified in context, process, and outcome variables and analyzed retrospectively. Clinically relevant variables were selected based on expert consensus. Associations were expressed, using zero-order, as Spearman rank correlation coefficients (criterion: rs > 0.25 [minimum: fair]; α-value = 0.05).Results: In round 1, 62 of 85 (72.9%) variables were selected by an expert panel as relevant for clinical reasoning; in round 2, 34 of 62 (54.8%) (context variables 9 of 18 [50.0%]; process variables 18 of 34 [52.9]; outcome variables 8 of 10 [90.0%]) as highly relevant. Associations between the selected context and process variables ranged from 0.27 to 0.53 (p≤ 0.00), between selected context and outcome variables from 0.26 to 0.55 (p≤ 0.00), and between selected process and outcome variables from 0.29 to 0.59 (p≤ 0.00). Moderate associations (rs > 0.50; p≤ 0.00) were found between “pain coping” and “fear avoidance” as process variables, and “pain intensity” and “functioning” as outcome variables.Conclusion: The identified associations between selected context, process, and outcome variables were fair to moderate. Ongoing work may clarify some of these associations and provide guidance to physiotherapists on how best to improve the quality of clinical reasoning in terms of relationships between context, process, and outcome in the management of patients with WAD.Keywords: physiotherapy, whiplash injuries, outcome and process assessment, healthcare quality indicators, collected data

Rob AB Oostendorp,1–4 Hans Elvers,5,6 Emiel van Trijffel,7,8 Geert M Rutten,9,10 Gwendolyne GM Scholten–Peeters,11 Marcel Heijmans,4 Erik Hendriks,12,13 Emilia Mikolajewska,14,15 Margot De Kooning,3,8,16 Marjan Laekeman,17 Jo Nijs,3,8,16 Nathalie Roussel,18 Han Samwel191Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 2Department of Manual Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; 3Pain in Motion International Research Group, Free University Brussels, Brussels, Belgium; 4Practice Physiotherapy and Manual Therapy, Heeswijk-Dinther, the Netherlands; 5Department of Public Health and Research, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 6Methodological Health-Skilled Institute, Beuningen, the Netherlands; 7SOMT University of Physiotherapy, Amersfoort, the Netherlands; 8Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Free University Brussels, Brussels, Belgium; 9Institute of Health Studies, Faculty of Health and Social Studies, HAN University of Applied Science, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 10Faculty of Science and Engineering, University College Venlo, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 11Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioral and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 12Department of Epidemiology, Center of Evidence-Based Physiotherapy, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 13Practice Physiotherapy ‘Klepperheide’, Druten, the Netherlands; 14Department of Physiotherapy, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Torun, Poland; 15Neurocognitive Laboratory, Centre for Modern Interdisciplinary Technologies, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Torun, Poland; 16Department of Physical Medicine and Physiotherapy, University Hospital Brussels, Brussels, Belgium; 17Department of Nursing Sciences, Faculty of Health, University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany; 18Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy (MOVANT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium; 19Department of Medical Psychology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the NetherlandsPurpose: To develop valid quality indicators (QIs) for physiotherapy care based on best available evidence, and to use these QIs to explore trends in the quality of physiotherapy care of patients with Whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) using guideline-based routinely collected data (RCD) gathered between 1996 and 2011.Materials and methods: The study consisted of two phases: 1) development of QIs and 2) analysis of patient records. A set of QIs was developed based on recommendations in the scientific literature and the Dutch Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) “Physiotherapy Management and WAD”. QIs were expressed as percentages, allowing target performance levels to be defined (≥80% or ≤30% depending on whether desired performance required a high or low score on a QI). We then analyzed WAD patient data (N = 810) collected over a period of 16 years in two physiotherapy practices, separating patients into two groups defined as before (Group A 1996–2002; n = 353) and after (Group B 2003–2011; n = 457) implementation and transition to the Dutch CPG “Physiotherapy Management and WAD”.Results: Using an iterative process and input from both experts and users, 28 QIs were developed and subsequently classified per step of the clinical reasoning process for physiotherapy care. Based on 16 years of RCD, we found that the clinical reasoning process differed significantly (P ≤ 0.05) between the groups, in favor of Group B. Twelve of the 25 indicators (48.0%) in Group A and 19 of 26 indicators (73.1%) in Group B met predetermined performance targets. The number of target indicators also differed significantly between groups, favoring Group B (P ≤ 0.05).Conclusion: A preliminary set of novel QIs was developed. Using RCD and these QIs, we conclude that physiotherapy care in our study setting improved over the period 1996–2011. Furthermore, the QIs met the performance targets set for the clinical reasoning process after the transition to the Dutch CPG “Physiotherapy Management and WAD”. Keywords: quality of physiotherapy care, Whiplash-associated disorders, clinical guidelines, quality indicators, clinical reasoning process, routinely collected data

Abstract Background The American short form Patient Activation Measure (PAM) is a 13-item instrument which assesses patient (or consumer) self-reported knowledge, skills and confidence for self-management of one’s health or chronic condition. In this study the PAM was translated into a Dutch version; psychometric properties of the Dutch version were established and the instrument was validated in a panel of chronically ill patients. Methods The translation was done according to WHO guidelines. The PAM 13-Dutch was sent to 4178 members of the Dutch National Panel of people with Chronic illness or Disability (NPCD) in April 2010 (study A) and again to a sub sample of this group (N = 973) in June 2010 (study B). Internal consistency, test-retest reliability and cross-validation with the SBSQ-D (a measure for Health literacy) were computed. The Dutch results were compared to similar Danish and American data. Results The psychometric properties of the PAM 13-Dutch were generally good. The level of internal consistency is good (α = 0.88) and item-rest correlations are moderate to strong. The Dutch mean PAM score (61.3) is comparable to the American (61.9) and lower than the Danish (64.2). The test-retest reliability was moderate. The association with Health literacy was weak to moderate. Conclusions The PAM-13 Dutch is a reliable instrument to measure patient activation. More research is needed into the validity of the Patient Activation Measure, especially with respect to a more comprehensive measure of Health literacy.

Abstract Background Compared to healthy people, patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) participate less in paid jobs and social activities. The aim of the study was to examine a) the perceived autonomy, self-esteem and labor participation of patients in the pre-dialysis phase, b) pre-dialysis patients' illness perceptions and treatment perceptions, and c) the association of these perceptions with autonomy, self-esteem and labor participation. Methods Patients (N = 109) completed questionnaires at home. Data were analysed using bivariate and multivariate analyses. Results The results showed that the average autonomy levels were not very high, but the average level of self-esteem was rather high, and that drop out of the labor market already occurs during the pre-dialysis phase. Positive illness and treatment beliefs were associated with higher autonomy and self-esteem levels, but not with employment. Multiple regression analyses revealed that illness and treatment perceptions explained a substantial amount of variance in autonomy (17%) and self-esteem (26%). The perception of less treatment disruption was an important predictor. Conclusions Patient education on possibilities to combine CKD and its treatment with activities, including paid work, might stimulate positive (realistic) beliefs and prevent or challenge negative beliefs. Interventions focusing on these aspects may assist patients to adjust to CKD, and ultimately prevent unnecessary drop out of the labor market.