QUESTION: Is the de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) valid for measuring the mobility of patients making the transition from hospital to the community? DESIGN: Observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: 696 consecutive patients admitted to 11 Transition Care Programs for multidisciplinary care in Victoria and Tasmania during a 6-month period. The DEMMI and Modified Barthel Index were administered within 5 working days of admission and discharge from the Transition Care Program. OUTCOME MEASURES: The DEMMI and Modified Barthel Index. RESULTS: Neither the DEMMI nor the Modified Barthel Index had a floor or ceiling effect. Similar evidence of convergent, discriminant and known-groups validity were obtained for each instrument. The DEMMI was significantly more responsive to change than the Modified Barthel Index using criterion- and distribution-based methods. The minimum clinically important difference estimates represented similar proportions of the scale width for the DEMMI and Modified Barthel Index and were similar using criterion- and distribution-based estimates. Rasch analysis identified the DEMMI as essentially unidimensional in a Transition Care Program cohort and therefore can be applied to obtain interval level measurement. Rasch analysis demonstrated that the DEMMI was administered similarly by physiotherapists and allied health assistants under the direction of a physiotherapist. CONCLUSION: The DEMMI and Modified Barthel Index are both valid measures of activity limitation for Transition Care Program patients. The DEMMI has a broader scale width, provides interval level measurement, and is significantly more responsive to change than the Modified Barthel Index for measuring the mobility of Transition Care Program patients.
QUESTION: Is the de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) valid for measuring the mobility of patients making the transition from hospital to the community? DESIGN: Observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: 696 consecutive patients admitted to 11 Transition Care Programs for multidisciplinary care in Victoria and Tasmania during a 6-month period. The DEMMI and Modified Barthel Index were administered within 5 working days of admission and discharge from the Transition Care Program. OUTCOME MEASURES: The DEMMI and Modified Barthel Index. RESULTS: Neither the DEMMI nor the Modified Barthel Index had a floor or ceiling effect. Similar evidence of convergent, discriminant and known-groups validity were obtained for each instrument. The DEMMI was significantly more responsive to change than the Modified Barthel Index using criterion- and distribution-based methods. The minimum clinically important difference estimates represented similar proportions of the scale width for the DEMMI and Modified Barthel Index and were similar using criterion- and distribution-based estimates. Rasch analysis identified the DEMMI as essentially unidimensional in a Transition Care Program cohort and therefore can be applied to obtain interval level measurement. Rasch analysis demonstrated that the DEMMI was administered similarly by physiotherapists and allied health assistants under the direction of a physiotherapist. CONCLUSION: The DEMMI and Modified Barthel Index are both valid measures of activity limitation for Transition Care Program patients. The DEMMI has a broader scale width, provides interval level measurement, and is significantly more responsive to change than the Modified Barthel Index for measuring the mobility of Transition Care Program patients.
Authors: T Braun; R-J Schulz; M Hoffmann; J Reinke; L Tofaute; C Urner; H Krämer; T Bock; N de Morton; C Grüneberg Journal: Z Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 1.281
Authors: Selina M Parry; Catherine L Granger; Sue Berney; Jennifer Jones; Lisa Beach; Doa El-Ansary; René Koopman; Linda Denehy Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Catherine M Said; Meg E Morris; Jennifer L McGinley; Cassandra Szoeke; Barbara Workman; Danny Liew; Keith Hill; Michael Woodward; Joanne E Wittwer; Leonid Churilov; Cameron Ventura; Julie Bernhardt Journal: Trials Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Ann Christine Bodilsen; Henrik Hedegaard Klausen; Janne Petersen; Nina Beyer; Ove Andersen; Lillian Mørch Jørgensen; Helle Gybel Juul-Larsen; Thomas Bandholm Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Leanne Hassett; Maayken van den Berg; Richard I Lindley; Maria Crotty; Annie McCluskey; Hidde P van der Ploeg; Stuart T Smith; Karl Schurr; Maggie Killington; Bert Bongers; Kirsten Howard; Stephane Heritier; Leanne Togher; Maree Hackett; Daniel Treacy; Simone Dorsch; Siobhan Wong; Katharine Scrivener; Sakina Chagpar; Heather Weber; Ross Pearson; Catherine Sherrington Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Leanne Hassett; Maayken van den Berg; Richard I Lindley; Maria Crotty; Annie McCluskey; Hidde P van der Ploeg; Stuart T Smith; Karl Schurr; Kirsten Howard; Maree L Hackett; Maggie Killington; Bert Bongers; Leanne Togher; Daniel Treacy; Simone Dorsch; Siobhan Wong; Katharine Scrivener; Sakina Chagpar; Heather Weber; Marina Pinheiro; Stephane Heritier; Catherine Sherrington Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 11.069