Dataset Information

Performance-based versus patient-reported physical function: what are the underlying predictors?

ABSTRACT: Functional limitations have been operationally defined for studies of rehabilitation science through measures of physical performance and patient-reported function. Although conceived as representing similar concepts, differences between these 2 modes of measuring physical functioning have not been adequately characterized scientifically.The purpose of this study was to compare the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) with the function component of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI) with respect to their association with physiologic factors and other psychosocial and health factors potentially influencing rehabilitative care.This study was a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a sample of community-dwelling older adults (N=137) with mobility limitations enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of exercise.A performance-based measure of function (the SPPB) and a self-report measure of function (the LLFDI) served as functional outcomes. Physiologic factors included measures of leg strength, leg velocity, and exercise tolerance test (ETT) duration, which served as a surrogate measure of aerobic capacity. Psychosocial and health factors included age, sex, height, body mass index, number of chronic conditions, depression, and falls efficacy.Separate multivariable regression models predicting SPPB and LLFDI scores described 33% and 42% of the variance in each outcome (R(2)), respectively. Leg velocity and ETT duration were positively associated with both performance-based and patient-reported functional measures. Leg strength and age were positively associated with SPPB scores, whereas number of chronic conditions, sex, and falls efficacy were associated with the LLFDI scores.This study included older adults with mobility limitations and may not generalize to other populations.Performance-based and patient-reported measures of physical function appear to assess different aspects of an older person's functioning. The SPPB was associated with age and physiologic factors, whereas patient-reported function measured by the LLFDI was associated with these factors as well as with psychosocial and health factors.

SUBMITTER: Bean JF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3229045 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Performance-based versus patient-reported physical function: what are the underlying predictors?

Bean Jonathan F JF Olveczky Daniele D DD Kiely Dan K DK LaRose Sharon I SI Jette Alan M AM

Physical therapy 20111014 12

<h4>Background</h4>Functional limitations have been operationally defined for studies of rehabilitation science through measures of physical performance and patient-reported function. Although conceived as representing similar concepts, differences between these 2 modes of measuring physical functioning have not been adequately characterized scientifically.<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this study was to compare the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) with the function component of the L ...[more]

PMID: 22003163

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Improving all aspects of physical function is an important goal of chronic pain management. Few studies follow recent guidelines to comprehensively assess physical function via patient-reported, performance-based, and objective/ambulatory measures. Purpose:To test 1) the interrelation between the 3 types of physical function measurement and 2) the association between psychosocial factors and each type of physical function measurement. Methods:Patients with chronic pain (N=79) completed measures of: 1) physical function (patient-reported disability; performance-based 6-minute walk-test; objective accelerometer step count); 2) pain and non-adaptive coping (pain during rest and activity, pain-catastrophizing, kinesiophobia); 3) adaptive coping (mindfulness, general coping, pain-resilience); and 4) social-emotional dysfunction (anxiety, depression, social isolation and emotional support). First, we tested the interrelation among the 3 aspects of physical function. Second, we used structural equation modeling to test associations between psychosocial factors (pain and non-adaptive coping, adaptive coping, and social-emotional dysfunction) and each measurement of physical function. Results:Performance-based and objective physical function were significantly interrelated (r=0.48, p<0.001) but did not correlate with patient-reported disability. Pain and non-adaptive coping (?=0.68, p<0.001), adaptive coping (?=-0.65, p<0.001) and social-emotional dysfunction (?=0.65, p<0.001) were associated with patient-reported disability but not to performance-based or objective physical function (ps>0.1). Conclusion:Results suggest that patient-reported physical function may provide limited information about patients' physical capacity or ambulatory activity. While pain and non-adaptive reactions to it, adaptive coping, and social-emotional dysfunction may potentially improve patient-reported physical function, additional targets may be needed to improve functional capacity and ambulatory activity. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03412916.

Project description:BackgroundImproving physical function among patients with chronic pain is critical for reducing disability and healthcare costs. However, mechanisms underlying improvement in patient-reported, performance-based, and ambulatory physical function in chronic pain remain poorly understood.PurposeTo explore psychosocial mediators of improvement in patient-reported, performance-based, and objective/accelerometer-measured physical function among participants in a mind-body activity program.MethodsIndividuals with chronic pain were randomized to one of two identical 10-week mind-body activity interventions aimed at improving physical function with (GetActive-Fitbit; N=41) or without (GetActive; N=41) a Fitbit device. They completed self-reported (WHODAS 2.0), performance-based (6-minute walk test), and objective (accelerometer-measured step-count) measures of physical function, as well as measures of kinesiophobia (Tampa Kinesiophobia Scale), mindfulness (CAMS-R), and pain resilience (Pain Resilience Scale) before and after the intervention. We conducted secondary data analyses to test mediation via mixed-effects modeline.ResultsImprovements in patient-reported physical function were fully and uniquely mediated by kinesiophobia (Completely Standardized Indirect Effect (CSIE)=.18; CI=0.08, 0.30; medium-large effect size), mindfulness (CSIE=-.14; CI=-25, -.05; medium effect size) and pain resilience (CSIE=-.07; CI=-.16, -.005; small-medium effect size). Improvements in performance-based physical function were mediated only by kinesiophobia (CSIE=-.11; CI=-23, -.008; medium effect size). No measures mediated improvements in objective (accelerometer measured) physical function.ConclusionInterventions aiming to improve patient-reported physical function in patients with chronic pain may benefit from skills that target kinesiophobia, mindfulness, and pain resilience, while those focused on improving performance-based physical function should target primarily kinesiophobia. More research is needed to understand mechanisms of improvement in objective, accelerometer-measured physical function.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03412916.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Surgical treatment of osteoarthritis with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) usually takes place in a complete bloodless field using a tourniquet. However, doing the surgery without a tourniquet may reduce muscle damage, post-surgery pain and led to improved functional rehabilitation and mobilization. METHODS/DESIGN:A prospective, blinded, parallel-group, controlled superiority trial, with balanced randomization [1:1]. Patients aged 50 or older eligible for primary TKA for osteoarthritis will be consecutively recruited from Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark. A total of 80 patients will be randomly allocated to TKA with or without tourniquet application providing 40 patients for each of the two treatment arms. The tourniquet assisted TKA group will have an automatic, micro-processor-based pneumatic tourniquet inflated around the thigh during surgery. The non-tourniquet assisted TKA group will have surgery performed without application of a tourniquet. The primary aim is to compare tourniquet assisted to non-tourniquet assisted TKA on patient-reported physical function (KOOS-ADL). The secondary aim is to compare post-surgery pain, function in sports and recreation, quality of life, and performance-based physical function. The explorative outcomes include; use of pain medication, single-fiber muscle damage, and changes in mechanical muscle function. The primary endpoint will be at 3-months following surgical treatment, and the time-point for analysis of the primary outcome. However, follow-up will continue up to 1 year, and provide medium-term results. The treatment effect (difference in KOOS-ADL) will be analyzed using a random effects regression model, crude and adjusted results will be reported, if needed. Analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat (ITT). Subsequent per-protocol analysis may be necessary in the event of a substantial number of patients (> 15%) being lost during follow-up. The number needed to treat (NNT) for a positive effect of treatment (>10 points on KOOS-ADL) will be reported. DISCUSSION:This is the first randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of tourniquet assisted TKA on patient-reported physical function supported by a range of performance-based secondary outcome measures. As such it will provide high quality evidence that may help determine whether tourniquet should be used in future TKA procedures in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials NCT01891266.

Project description:Individuals with hip dysplasia report significant functional disability that improves with periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). Four physical performance measures (PPMs) have been recently validated for use with nonarthritic hip conditions; however, their ability to detect functional improvement and correlate with improvements in popular hip-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments after PAO is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the responsiveness of four PPMs up to 1 year after PAO, compare PPMs with established PRO measures at these time points, and report the acceptability and utility of PPMs for assessing outcomes after PAO. Twenty-two participants aged 15 to 39 years completed the timed stair ascent (TSA), sit-to-stand five times (STS5), self-selected walking speed, four-square-step test, and seven hip-specific PRO measures before surgery and at approximately 6 months and 1 year after PAO. They completed questions regarding acceptability and utility of both types of testing. Wilcoxon rank sum test and unpaired Student t-tests were used to assess differences between time points; Spearman correlation and generalized linear modeling were used to determine the relationship between PPMs and PRO measures. Six months after PAO, participants showed significant improvements on all seven PRO instruments (P < 0.001) and on the STS5 (P = 0.01). At one year, these improvements were maintained and TSA also improved (P = 0.03). Improvement in other PPMs did not reach significance (P = 0.07 and 0.08). The STS5 test demonstrated moderate to strong correlation (|r| = 0.43 to 0.76, P < 0.05) with all PRO measures, and the TSA test demonstrated moderate to strong correlation with almost all measures (|r| = 0.43 to 0.58, P < 0.05). Correlations strengthened on subanalysis of participants with unilateral disease (n = 11) (|r| = 0.56 to 0.94, P < 0.05). All participants (100%) found PPM testing acceptable despite disability; 25% preferred PPMs to PRO measures, whereas 75% of participants found them equal in usefulness. The STS5 and TSA tests demonstrated moderate to very strong correlation with PRO measures at six and 12 months after PAO for dysplasia. These tests could be used as a functional outcome to supplement PRO instruments after PAO.

Dataset Information

Performance-based versus patient-reported physical function: what are the underlying predictors?

Publications

Performance-based versus patient-reported physical function: what are the underlying predictors?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets