Self-reported disability according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Low Back Pain Core Set: Test-retest agreement and reliability

Minimal clinical datasets for spine-related musculoskeletal disorders in primary and outpatient care settings: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Effective measurement and monitoring of health status in patients with spine-related musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders are essential for providing appropriate care and improving outcomes. Minimal clinical datasets are standardized sets of key data elements and patient-centered outcomes that can be measured and recorded during routine clinical care. Our scoping review aimed to identify and map current evidence on minimal clinical datasets for measuring and monitoring health status in patients with spine-related MSK disorders in primary and outpatient healthcare settings.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We followed the JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology for scoping reviews. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Index to Chiropractic Literature, MANTIS, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and medRxiv preprint repository were searched from database inception to August 1, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and charted the evidence. Findings were synthesized and summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

After screening 5,583 citations and 301 full-text articles, 104 studies about 32 individual minimal clinical datasets were included. Most minimal clinical datasets were developed for patient populations with spine-involving inflammatory arthritis, nonspecific or degenerative spinal pain, and MSK disorders in general. The minimal clinical datasets varied substantially in terms of the author-reported time-to-complete (1-48 minutes) and the number of items (5-100 items). Fifty percent of the datasets involved healthcare professionals in their development process, and only 28% involved patients. Health domain items were most frequently linked to the components of activities and participation (43.9%) and body functions (28.6%), according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. There is no standardized definition of minimal clinical datasets to measure and monitor health status of patients with spine-related MSK disorders in routine clinical practice. Common core elements identified were practicality, feasibility in a busy routine practice, time efficiency, and the capability to be used across different healthcare settings.

CONCLUSION

Due to the absence of a standard definition for minimal clinical datasets for patients with spine-related MSK disorders, there is a lack of consistency in the selection of key data elements and patient-centered outcomes that should be included. More research on the implementation and feasibility of minimal clinical datasets in routine care settings is warranted and needed. It is essential to involve all relevant partners in the development process of minimal clinical datasets to ensure successful implementation and adoption in routine primary care.

Measuring oral health-How can the International Classification of Functioning help?

There is a need for a theoretically informed, contextualized approach to measuring oral health from a multidisciplinary perspective that goes beyond the commonly used clinical indices and sociodental measures. This commentary aims to discuss the potential for the WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to provide a model for the development of indicators for oral health. It is suggested that the ICF might provide both a theoretical model and an operational classification for indicators of oral health. The ICF model states that human experience of physical, cognitive and social functioning is universal and, thus, can be described and qualified. Human function is given social and environmental context within the model at both an individual and population level. The ICF can not only capture data regarding oral health and function at the physiological level (e.g. chewing) but also at the social level (e.g. sharing meals). It is able not only to capture aspects of preventive behaviour (e.g. caring for teeth) but also aspects of social facilitation (e.g. economic self-sufficiency) or ability to fulfil a social role (e.g. remunerative employment). It also includes aspects of social environment, such as healthcare services or political, economic and legal systems. Case studies are given as examples of the potential use of the ICF in the oral health domain. Examples are also given of the first steps that have been made towards operationalization of the ICF in data collection and oral health research. The challenges of encompassing such a comprehensive model into a practical oral health measure are discussed.

ICF-Based Assessment of Functioning in Daily Clinical Practice. A Promising Direction Toward Patient-Centred Care in Patients With Low Back Pain

Background: Patient-centred care has received increased attention in recent years. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and shared decision-making are key components of Patient-Centred care. Low back pain (LBP) is a complex symptom affected by multiple, interacting factors. Therefore, evidence strongly recommend a biopsychosocial and patient-centred approach in the assessment and management. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) provide a biopsychosocial model for describing functioning and disability. ICF is widely acknowledged, but implementation into clinical practice is lacking. To support the use of a biopsychosocial and patient-centred approach in daily clinical practice among patients with LBP we developed a practice-friendly tool based on ICF; the LBP assessment tool.

Objective: To compare an ICF-based assessment facilitated by the LBP assessment tool with standard care in terms of the use of PROs and shared decision-making in order to promote patient-centred care in patients with LBP.

Methods: A non-randomized controlled design was used. Eligible patients were allocated to one of two groups: the ICF group, assessed with the LBP assessment tool or the control group, assessed with a conventional LBP assessment. Primary outcome includes use of PROs. Secondary outcomes include use of a graphical overview displaying the patient profile and shared decision-making. A patient evaluation questionnaire was used to collect data.

Results: Seven hundred ten patients were assessed for eligibility of whom 531 were allocated to the ICF group (n = 299) or the control group (n = 232). A significantly higher use of PRO data (p < 0.00) and the patient profile (p < 0.00) was reported in favor of the ICF group. Patients in the ICF group also experienced being more involved in decision-making (p = 0.01).

Conclusions: This study showed that a functioning assessment, by means of the LBP assessment tool, increased use of PROs and shared decision-making when compared to a conventional LBP assessment. Additionally, this study demonstrated that routine use of ICF-based PRO data and shared decision-making promoted patient-centred care in patients with LBP. The LBP assessment tool may be a strong candidate for a user-friendly ICF-based tool with the potential to support health professionals in a shift toward a biopsychosocial and patient-centred approach to patients with LBP.

Assessment of functioning and disability in patients with low back pain - the low back pain assessment tool. Part 1: development

PURPOSE

To present the process used to develop the low back pain (LBP) assessment tool including evaluation of the initial content validity of the tool.

METHODS

The development process comprised the elements: definition of construct and content, literature search, item generation, needs assessment, piloting, adaptations, design, and technical production. The LBP assessment tool was developed to assess the construct "functioning and disability" as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Involvement of patients and health professionals was essential.

RESULTS

The elements were collapsed into five steps. In total, 18 patients and 12 health professionals contributed to the content and the design of the tool. The LBP assessment tool covered all ICF components shared among 63 ICF categories.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents the process used to develop the LBP assessment tool, which is the first tool to address all ICF components and integrate biopsychosocial perspectives provided by patients and health professionals in the same tool. Initial evaluation of content validity showed adequate reflection of the construct "functioning and disability". Further work on the way will evaluate comprehensiveness, acceptability, and degree of implementation of the LBP assessment tool to strengthen its use for clinical practice.Implications for RehabilitationA biopsychosocial and patients-centred approach is a strong foundation for identifying the many relevant aspects related to low back pain (LBP).Responding to a lack of tools to support a biopsychosocial and patients-centred approach the LBP assessment tool was developed using a robust, multi-step process with involvement of patients and health professionals.The LBP assessment tool is a strong candidate for a user-friendly tool to facilitate use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in routine clinical practice.

Validation of the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) core sets from 2001 to 2019 - a scoping review

Objective: To investigate and summarize the literature on the validation of International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) core sets from 2001 to 2019 and explore what research methods have been used when validating ICF core sets.Methods: The current study is a scoping review using a structured literature search.Results: In total, 66 scientific articles were included, of which 23 ICF core sets were validated. Most validation studies were conducted in Europe using a quantitative methodology and were validated from the perspective of patients. Analysis methods differed considerably between the studies, and most ICF core sets were validated only once for a single target population or from a single perspective. The comprehensive core sets were validated more often than the brief core sets, and core sets for stroke and low back pain were validated most often.Conclusion: The results of the current study show that only 66% of the existing ICF core sets are validated. Many of the validation studies are conducted in a European context and from a single perspective. More validation studies of ICF core sets from the perspective of both patients and professionals are needed.Implications for rehabilitationICF core sets aim to facilitate assessments in clinical settings and research.Validation studies indicate in general that the ICF core sets are valid and relevant for patients and professionals in the specific areas explored and thus can be used in rehabilitation settings.To improve the quality of ICF core sets, more validation studies are needed for ICF core sets not yet tested and for ICF core sets that have been validated only in one study or for one specific population or target group.

Psychometric Properties of the Polish Version of the 36-Item WHODAS 2.0 in Patients with Low Back Pain

The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be a useful tool for assessing the functioning and disability of the general population as well as the effectiveness of the applied interventions. Until this study, no data regarding the validity of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 in chronic low back pain (LBP) in Poland have been explored. This study was conducted on 92 patients suffering from chronic LBP admitted to the rehabilitation ward. The Polish version of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0, the Sf-36 Health Survey (SF-36), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) questionnaires were applied to assess patients. The scale score reliability of the entire tool for the study population was very high. The Cronbach's alpha test result for the entire scale was 0.92. For the overall result of the WHODAS 2.0, the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC1,2) was 0.928, which confirmed that the scale was consistent over time. The total result and the vast majority of domains of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 correlated negatively with domains of the SF-36 questionnaire; thus, a higher WHODAS 2.0 score was associated with a lower score on the SF-36 questionnaire. We found that the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the total WHODAS 2.0 score in patients after rehabilitation for LBP was 4.87. Overall, the results indicated that the Polish version of the 36-item WHODAS is suitable for assessing health and disability status in patients with LBP.

Low back pain and disability in military police: an epidemiological study

Abstract Introduction: The low back pain is a major public health problem in industrialized societies, commonly affecting the adult population. The occupation is considered as a risk factor, especially those functions that require physical effort, we have as example the job of the military police, who are exposed to several risk factors, both those who perform administrative activities, and those who perform the ostensive policing. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of low back pain among military police, as well the presence of disability and associated factors. Methods: This is an analytical cross-sectional study. Was evaluated the level of disability, pain before and after the work shift, flexibility, postural alterations and anthropometric measures. It was used the regression analysis, considering 95% CI and p < 0.05. Were interviewed 97 military police with mean age of 39.30 (± 5.33), all males. Results: The complaint of low back pain was significantly larger after the work shift, and 82.5% reported difficulties in daily life activities due to low back pain. Conclusion: There is a high prevalence of low back pain and impairment in daily life activities because of military police. The data presented reinforce the need to consider low back pain as a public health problem that affects the whole population, especially the military police.

Clinical classification criteria for nonspecific low back pain: A Delphi-survey of clinical experts

BACKGROUND

Nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) is a common problem. Attempts have been made to classify NSLBP patients into homogenous subgroups. Classification systems based on identifying the underlying mechanism(s) driving the disorder are clinically useful to guide specific interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To establish consensus among experts regarding clinical criteria suggestive of a dominance of 'articular', 'myofascial', 'neural', 'central', and 'sensorimotor control' dysfunction patterns (DPs) in NSLBP patients.

STUDY DESIGN

A 2-phase sequential design of a focus group and Delphi-study.

METHODS

A focus group with 10 academic experts was organized to elaborate on the different DPs discernible in LBP patients. Consecutively, a 3-round online Delphi-survey was designed to obtain consensual symptoms and physical examination findings for the 5 DPs resulting from the focus group.

RESULTS

Fifteen musculoskeletal physical therapists from Belgium and the Netherlands experienced in assessing and treating LBP patients completed the Delphi-survey. Respectively, 34 (response rate, 100.0%), 20 (58.8%) and 15 (44.12%) respondents replied to rounds 1, 2 and 3. Twenty-two 'articular', 20 'myofascial', 21 'neural', 18 'central' and 11 'sensorimotor control' criteria reached a predefined ≥80% consensus level. For example, after round 2, 85.0% of the Delphi-experts agreed to identify 'referred pain below the knee' as a subjective examination criterion suggestive for a predominant 'neural DP'.

CONCLUSION

These indicators suggestive of a clinical dominance of the proposed DPs could help clinicians to assess and diagnose NSLBP patients. Future reliability and validity testing is needed to determine how these criteria may help to improve physical therapy outcome for NSLBP patients.