Literature DB >> 34456439

Patient-Reported Questionnaires in Multiple Sclerosis Rehabilitation: Responsiveness and Minimal Important Difference of the French Version of the Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire for Physiotherapists.

Nico Arie van der Maas1, Sylvie Ferchichi-Barbey2.   

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the responsiveness and minimal important difference (MID) of the French version of the Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire for Physiotherapists (MSQPT). Method: A distribution-based approach was used. Patients (32) were recruited from inpatient and outpatient settings; they completed both the MSQPT and the Hamburg Quality of Life Questionnaire in Multiple Sclerosis (HAQUAMS) at baseline and again at 6 months or discharge. Responsiveness was evaluated using effect size (ES), standardized response mean (SRM), and modified SRM (MSRM), and the relative efficiency between the MSQPT and HAQUAMS was calculated. Distribution-based MID estimates were calculated for 0.33 SD, standard error of measurement, and minimal detectable change.
Results: The main ES ranged from 0.41 (low) to 1.23 (high). The SRM (-0.89 to 2.69) was generally higher than the ES. The main MSRMs were acceptably low (-0.03 to 0.19). Although the MSQPT seemed more efficient than the HAQUAMS in detecting improved activity and participation, it was less efficient at identifying their deterioration. In a comparison of responsiveness and MID between the German and French versions of the MSQPT, the differences between estimates were small. Conclusions: The available evidence indicates that the French MSQPT is a responsive questionnaire with MIDs that are similar to those of the original German version. © Canadian Physiotherapy Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  multiple sclerosis; patient reported outcome measures; rehabilitation; surveys and questionnaires

Year:  2021        PMID: 34456439      PMCID: PMC8370695          DOI: 10.3138/ptc-2019-0096

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiother Can        ISSN: 0300-0508            Impact factor:   1.039


  29 in total

1.  Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires.

Authors:  Matthew H Liang; Robert A Lew; Gerold Stucki; Paul R Fortin; Lawren Daltroy
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  The usefulness of evaluative outcome measures in patients with multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  V de Groot; H Beckerman; B M J Uitdehaag; H C W de Vet; G J Lankhorst; C H Polman; L M Bouter
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2006-09-06       Impact factor: 13.501

3.  The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference.

Authors:  Dan Turner; Holger J Schünemann; Lauren E Griffith; Dorcas E Beaton; Anne M Griffiths; Jeffrey N Critch; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Exercise, functional limitations, and quality of life: A longitudinal study of persons with multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Alexa K Stuifbergen; Shelley A Blozis; Tracie C Harrison; Heather A Becker
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.966

5.  The development of ICF Core Sets for multiple sclerosis: results of the International Consensus Conference.

Authors:  Michaela Coenen; Alarcos Cieza; Jenny Freeman; Fary Khan; Deborah Miller; Andrea Weise; Jürg Kesselring
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2011-03-04       Impact factor: 4.849

6.  Applications of response shift theory and methods to participation measurement: a brief history of a young field.

Authors:  Carolyn E Schwartz
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.966

7.  Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS).

Authors:  J F Kurtzke
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  1983-11       Impact factor: 9.910

8.  Don't middle your MIDs: regression to the mean shrinks estimates of minimally important differences.

Authors:  Peter M Fayers; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Responsiveness and meaningful improvement of mobility measures following MS rehabilitation.

Authors:  Ilse Baert; Tori Smedal; Alon Kalron; Kamila Rasova; Adnan Heric-Mansrud; Rainer Ehling; Iratxe Elorriaga Minguez; Una Nedeljkovic; Andrea Tacchino; Peter Hellinckx; Greet Adriaenssens; Gosia Stachowiak; Klaus Gusowski; Davide Cattaneo; Sophie Borgers; Jeffrey Hebert; Ulrik Dalgas; Peter Feys
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 9.910

Review 10.  Exercise therapy for fatigue in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Martin Heine; Ingrid van de Port; Marc B Rietberg; Erwin E H van Wegen; Gert Kwakkel
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-09-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.