OBJECTIVE: To test the Norwegian version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) for validity, responsiveness, and feasibility in patients with hand osteoarthritis. METHODS: Seventy-nine patients completed a COPM interview and several self-reported health status questionnaires, including Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2, modified Health Assessment Questionnaire; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index. Rescoring of the same instruments was performed 4 months later, after an intervention. RESULTS: The COPM detected a great variability of occupational performance problems. The hypotheses for testing validity were confirmed. Mean COPM change was 1.51 (P < 0.001) in performance score, and 2.22 (P < 0.001) in satisfaction score. The median time spent on the COPM interview was 30 minutes (range 10-70 minutes). The patients found the questions easy to understand, but 37% reported problems performing the scoring procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The Norwegian version of the COPM is a valid and responsive instrument for use in clinical practice in osteoarthritis patients. It may serve as an instrument to promote a client-centered approach and as a supplement to other health measures in the planning and evaluating of interventions. Feasibility regarding scoring needs to be improved.
OBJECTIVE: To test the Norwegian version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) for validity, responsiveness, and feasibility in patients with hand osteoarthritis. METHODS: Seventy-nine patients completed a COPM interview and several self-reported health status questionnaires, including Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2, modified Health Assessment Questionnaire; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index. Rescoring of the same instruments was performed 4 months later, after an intervention. RESULTS: The COPM detected a great variability of occupational performance problems. The hypotheses for testing validity were confirmed. Mean COPM change was 1.51 (P < 0.001) in performance score, and 2.22 (P < 0.001) in satisfaction score. The median time spent on the COPM interview was 30 minutes (range 10-70 minutes). The patients found the questions easy to understand, but 37% reported problems performing the scoring procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The Norwegian version of the COPM is a valid and responsive instrument for use in clinical practice in osteoarthritispatients. It may serve as an instrument to promote a client-centered approach and as a supplement to other health measures in the planning and evaluating of interventions. Feasibility regarding scoring needs to be improved.
Authors: I Kjeken; H Dagfinrud; B Slatkowsky-Christensen; P Mowinckel; T Uhlig; T K Kvien; A Finset Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2005-04-13 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Margreet Kloppenburg; Tanja Stamm; Iain Watt; Franz Kainberger; Tim E Cawston; Fraser N Birrell; Ingemar F Petersson; Tore Saxne; Tore K Kvien; Barbara Slatkowsky-Christensen; Maxime Dougados; Laure Gossec; Ferdinand C Breedveld; Josef S Smolen Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2007-03-14 Impact factor: 19.103