BACKGROUND: Activities and their importance for daily living vary widely between patients. Patient-specific measurement of functional status means that the evaluation is focused on activities that an individual patient selected as main complaints. OBJECTIVE: To develop and to evaluate a patient-specific approach for measuring functional status in low back pain. STUDY DESIGN: A cohort of 150 patients was measured at baseline and 12 weeks later. METHODS: The feasibility of the patient-specific approach was evaluated in patients with nonspecific low back pain. We used effect size statistics to evaluate responsiveness in terms of sensitivity to change and specificity to change. RESULTS: The selection procedure for the main complaint was feasible but labor intensive. The patient-specific approach was able to detect changes in complaints that were highly relevant for the patients. The patient-specific approach appeared to be more sensitive to change but less specific to change compared with other instruments. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this study it would be valuable to apply the patient-specific approach in future studies, also with the aim of further evaluation. In the meantime a number of practical problems of the method need to be resolved.
BACKGROUND: Activities and their importance for daily living vary widely between patients. Patient-specific measurement of functional status means that the evaluation is focused on activities that an individual patient selected as main complaints. OBJECTIVE: To develop and to evaluate a patient-specific approach for measuring functional status in low back pain. STUDY DESIGN: A cohort of 150 patients was measured at baseline and 12 weeks later. METHODS: The feasibility of the patient-specific approach was evaluated in patients with nonspecific low back pain. We used effect size statistics to evaluate responsiveness in terms of sensitivity to change and specificity to change. RESULTS: The selection procedure for the main complaint was feasible but labor intensive. The patient-specific approach was able to detect changes in complaints that were highly relevant for the patients. The patient-specific approach appeared to be more sensitive to change but less specific to change compared with other instruments. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this study it would be valuable to apply the patient-specific approach in future studies, also with the aim of further evaluation. In the meantime a number of practical problems of the method need to be resolved.
Authors: Steven J Kamper; Tasha R Stanton; Christopher M Williams; Christopher G Maher; Julia M Hush Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Petra Jellema; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Henriëtte E van der Horst; Jos W R Twisk; Wim A B Stalman; Lex M Bouter Journal: BMJ Date: 2005-06-20
Authors: Jeannette Saner; Jan Kool; Rob A de Bie; Judith M Sieben; Hannu Luomajoki Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Petra Jellema; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Henriëtte E van der Horst; Wim A B Stalman; Lex M Bouter Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Thomas J Hoogeboom; Mirelle J P M Stukstette; Rob A de Bie; Jessica Cornelissen; Alfons A den Broeder; Cornelia H M van den Ende Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: R W J G Ostelo; H C W de Vet; M W Berfelo; M R Kerckhoffs; J W S Vlaeyen; P M J C Wolters; P A van den Brandt Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2003-09-23 Impact factor: 3.134