Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 5/2015

01-05-2015 | Patient Engagement Special Section

Gaps between patients’ reported current and preferred abilities versus clinicians’ emphases during an episode of care: Any agreement?

Auteurs: Diane D. Allen, Carolina Talavera, Stephen Baxter, Kimberly Topp

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2015

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Purpose

To be patient-centered, assessment must extract what patients prefer to be able to do along with what they can do now so health care can specifically address the gap between current and preferred abilities. In this project, we compared patient-perceived current–preferred gaps with the assessments and interventions reported by clinicians in a rehabilitation clinic.

Methods

Sixty-two patients in outpatient physical therapy completed a computer-adaptive test version of the patient-reported Movement Ability Measure (MAM-CAT) at initial visit and discharge. The MAM-CAT calculated the gaps between the movement patients perceived that they could do “Now” and what movement ability they “Would Like” to have across six dimensions of movement: flexibility, strength, accuracy, speed, adaptability, and endurance. Physical therapists’ notes regarding assessments and interventions were categorized based on these same six dimensions of movement. Frequency of agreement between the largest patient-perceived gaps and clinician-documented emphases was recorded (kappa analyses), along with MAM-CAT changes at discharge (paired t tests).

Results

Although patient progress was noted in both the MAM-CAT and the clinician notes (p < .05), comparison showed poor or slight agreement (kappa < .05) between the specific movement dimensions patients regarded as having the largest gaps and the dimensions on which clinicians focused.

Conclusion

The MAM-CAT facilitated direct comparison of patients’ current–preferred gaps at initiation and discharge with clinicians’ emphases during episodes of care. While interventions were perceived as effective, collaboration between patients and clinicians using gap data could increase alignment between patient priorities and clinician emphases, potentially resulting in improved patient engagement and rehabilitative outcomes.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Cott, C. A. (2004). Client-centred rehabilitation: Client perspectives. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(24), 1411–1422. CrossRefPubMed Cott, C. A. (2004). Client-centred rehabilitation: Client perspectives. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(24), 1411–1422. CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Law, M., Baptiste, S., & Mills, J. (1995). Client-centred practice: What does it mean and does it make a difference? Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 250–257. CrossRef Law, M., Baptiste, S., & Mills, J. (1995). Client-centred practice: What does it mean and does it make a difference? Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 250–257. CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Crennan, M., & MacRae, A. (2010). Occupational therapy discharge assessment of elderly patients from acute care hospitals. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 28, 33–43. CrossRef Crennan, M., & MacRae, A. (2010). Occupational therapy discharge assessment of elderly patients from acute care hospitals. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 28, 33–43. CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Gabriel, S. E., & Normand, S.-L. T. (2012). Getting the methods right—The foundation of patient-centered outcomes research. New England Journal of Medicine, 367, 787–789. CrossRefPubMed Gabriel, S. E., & Normand, S.-L. T. (2012). Getting the methods right—The foundation of patient-centered outcomes research. New England Journal of Medicine, 367, 787–789. CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Allen, D. D., & Cott, C. A. (2010). Evaluating rehabilitation outcomes from the client’s perspective by identifying the gap between current and preferred movement ability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(6), 452–461. CrossRefPubMed Allen, D. D., & Cott, C. A. (2010). Evaluating rehabilitation outcomes from the client’s perspective by identifying the gap between current and preferred movement ability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(6), 452–461. CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Mitra, S. (2006). The capability approach and disability. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16, 236–247. CrossRef Mitra, S. (2006). The capability approach and disability. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16, 236–247. CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kiresuk, T., & Sherman, R. (1968). Goal attainment scaling: A general method of evaluating comprehensive mental programs. Community Mental Health Journal, 4, 443–453. CrossRefPubMed Kiresuk, T., & Sherman, R. (1968). Goal attainment scaling: A general method of evaluating comprehensive mental programs. Community Mental Health Journal, 4, 443–453. CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Stratford, P., Gill, C., Westaway, M., & Binkley, J. (1995). Assessing disability and change on individual patients: A report of a patient specific measure. Physiotherapy Canada, 47, 258–263. CrossRef Stratford, P., Gill, C., Westaway, M., & Binkley, J. (1995). Assessing disability and change on individual patients: A report of a patient specific measure. Physiotherapy Canada, 47, 258–263. CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Allen, D. D. (2007). Validity and reliability of the Movement Ability Measure: A self-report instrument proposed for assessing movement across diagnoses and ability levels. Physical Therapy, 87, 899–916. CrossRefPubMed Allen, D. D. (2007). Validity and reliability of the Movement Ability Measure: A self-report instrument proposed for assessing movement across diagnoses and ability levels. Physical Therapy, 87, 899–916. CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Cott, C. A., Finch, E., Gasner, D., Yoshida, K., Thomas, S. G., & Verrier, M. C. M. (1995). The movement continuum theory of physical therapy. Physiotherapy Canada, 47(2), 87–95. Cott, C. A., Finch, E., Gasner, D., Yoshida, K., Thomas, S. G., & Verrier, M. C. M. (1995). The movement continuum theory of physical therapy. Physiotherapy Canada, 47(2), 87–95.
12.
go back to reference Allen, D. D. (2007). Proposing 6 dimensions within the construct of movement in the Movement Continuum Theory. Physical Therapy, 87, 888–898. CrossRefPubMed Allen, D. D. (2007). Proposing 6 dimensions within the construct of movement in the Movement Continuum Theory. Physical Therapy, 87, 888–898. CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
go back to reference Allen, D. D. (2007). Responsiveness of the Movement Ability Measure: A self-report instrument proposed for assessing the effectiveness of physical therapy intervention. Physical Therapy, 87, 917–924. CrossRefPubMed Allen, D. D. (2007). Responsiveness of the Movement Ability Measure: A self-report instrument proposed for assessing the effectiveness of physical therapy intervention. Physical Therapy, 87, 917–924. CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Allen, D. D., Ni, P., & Haley, S. M. (2008). Efficiency and sensitivity of multidimensional computerized adaptive testing of pediatric physical functioning. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30(6), 479–484. CrossRefPubMed Allen, D. D., Ni, P., & Haley, S. M. (2008). Efficiency and sensitivity of multidimensional computerized adaptive testing of pediatric physical functioning. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30(6), 479–484. CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Adams, R. J., Wilson, M., & Wang, W. (1997). The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 1–23. CrossRef Adams, R. J., Wilson, M., & Wang, W. (1997). The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 1–23. CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Allen, D. D., & Wilson, M. (2006). Introducing multidimensional item response modeling in health behavior and health education research. Health Education Research, 21(Supplement 1), i73–i84. CrossRefPubMed Allen, D. D., & Wilson, M. (2006). Introducing multidimensional item response modeling in health behavior and health education research. Health Education Research, 21(Supplement 1), i73–i84. CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Allen, D. D. (2010). Using item response modeling methods to test theory related to human performance. Journal of Applied Measurement, 11(2), 99–111. PubMed Allen, D. D. (2010). Using item response modeling methods to test theory related to human performance. Journal of Applied Measurement, 11(2), 99–111. PubMed
19.
go back to reference Sim, J., & Wright, C. C. (2005). The kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy, 85, 257–268. PubMed Sim, J., & Wright, C. C. (2005). The kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy, 85, 257–268. PubMed
20.
go back to reference Bohannon, R. W. (2007). Muscle strength and muscle training after stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 39, 14–20. CrossRefPubMed Bohannon, R. W. (2007). Muscle strength and muscle training after stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 39, 14–20. CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Gaps between patients’ reported current and preferred abilities versus clinicians’ emphases during an episode of care: Any agreement?
Auteurs
Diane D. Allen
Carolina Talavera
Stephen Baxter
Kimberly Topp
Publicatiedatum
01-05-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0888-0

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2015

Quality of Life Research 5/2015 Naar de uitgave