Construct and discriminant validity of STarT Back Screening Tool - Brazilian version.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pilz B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5537440 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jan - Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to translate and culturally adapt the original version of the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) to Spanish for different population subgroups.DesignTranslation and cultural adaptation of a questionnaire.SettingPrimary care settings.MethodThirty-eight people distributed by: gender; adults and elderly; and with or without pain. Phases: a) Forward translation (English-Spanish); b) Evaluation of the clarity, the acceptability and the familiarity of the content of the obtained Spanish version by means of cognitive interviews to participants, and c) Translation of the final Spanish version of the questionnaire back into the original language.ResultsThe participants interviewed indicated that most of the items of the questionnaire were clear and comprehensible, showing greater difficulty in understanding in the dimensions of disability and anxiety. Furthermore, the questionnaire was more difficult to understand by the elderly and patients with a previous non-specific low back pain episode.ConclusionThe Spanish version of the SBST questionnaire was obtained, which was shown to be comprehensible and adapted to the general population in Spain. Due to being short and easy to use, it is a potentially useful tool for use in primary care.
| S-EPMC7024942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE: The STarT Back Screening Tool (STarT) is a nine-item patient self-report questionnaire that classifies low back pain patients into low, medium or high risk of poor prognosis. When assessed by GPs, these subgroups can be used to triage patients into different evidence-based treatment pathways. The objective of this study was to translate the English version of STarT into Danish (STarT-dk) and test its discriminative validity. METHODS: Translation was performed using methods recommended by best practice translation guidelines. Psychometric validation of the discriminative ability was performed using the Area Under the Curve statistic. The Area Under the Curve was calculated for seven of the nine items where reference standards were available and compared with the original English version. RESULTS: The linguistic translation required minor semantic and layout alterations. The response options were changed from "agree/disagree" to "yes/no" for four items. No patients reported item ambiguity using the final version. The Area Under the Curve ranged from 0.735 to 0.855 (CI95% 0.678-0.897) in a Danish cohort (n = 311) and 0.840 to 0.925 (CI95% 0.772-0.948) in the original English cohort (n = 500). On four items, the Area Under the Curve was statistically similar between the two cohorts but lower on three psychosocial sub-score items. CONCLUSIONS: The translation was linguistically accurate and the discriminative validity broadly similar, with some differences probably due to differences in severity between the cohorts and the Danish reference standard questionnaires not having been validated. Despite those differences, we believe the results show that the STarT-dk has sufficient patient acceptability and discriminative validity to be used in Denmark.
| S-EPMC3229746 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the predictive validity of the Subgrouping for Targeted Treatment (STarT Back) tool for classifying people with back pain into categories of low, medium, and high risk of persistent disabling back pain in U.S. primary care.DesignSecondary analysis of data from participants receiving usual care in a randomized clinical trial.SettingPrimary care clinics.ParticipantsAdults (N = 1109) ≥18 years of age with back pain. Those with specific causes of back pain (pregnancy, disc herniation, vertebral fracture, spinal stenosis) and work-related injuries were not included.InterventionsNot applicable.Main outcome measuresThe original 9-item version of the STarT Back tool, administered at baseline, stratified patients by their risk (low, medium, high) of persistent disabling back pain (STarT Back risk group). Persistent disabling back pain was defined as Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores of ≥7 at 6-month follow-up.ResultsThe STarT Back risk group was a significant predictor of persistent disabling back pain (P<.0001) at 6-month follow-up. The proportion of individuals with persistent disabling back pain at follow-up was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18-25) in the low-risk group, 62% (95% CI 57-67) in the medium-risk group, and 80% (95% CI 75-85) in the high-risk group. The relative risk of persistent disabling back pain was 2.9 (95% CI 2.4-3.5) in the medium-risk group compared to the low-risk group, and 3.7 (95% CI 3.1-4.4) in the high-risk group.ConclusionsThe STarT Back risk groups successfully separated people with back pain into distinct categories of risk for persistent disabling back pain at 6-month follow-up in U.S. primary care. These results were very similar to those in the original STarT Back validation study. This validation study is a necessary first step toward identifying whether the entire STarT Back approach, including matched/targeted treatment, can be effectively used for primary care in the United States.
| S-EPMC6064386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe Bournemouth Questionnaire is a comprehensive and short form multidimensional instrument developed to evaluate the health status of individuals with low back pain. The objective of this study was to verify the construct validity and the test-retest reliability of the Brazilian version of Bournemouth Questionnaire in individuals with low back pain.MethodsThis is a methodological study that included 65 patients with low back pain. The Brazilian Bournemouth Questionnaire was applied twice, and the test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimum detectable change (MDC), and internal consistency. The construct validity of the Brazilian Bournemouth Questionnaire was assessed using the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and also with the following questionnaires: Roland-Morris Questionnaire (RMDQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36).ResultsThe total score of the Brazilian Bournemouth Questionnaire showed ICC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.90), Cronbach´s alpha of 0.85, SEM of 5.97, and MDC of 15.54, without evidence of ceiling and floor effects. The total score of the Brazilian Bournemouth Questionnaire was correlated to the NPRS for current (r = 0.64), highest (r = 0.49), and lowest (r = 0.67) pain as well as scores on the RMDQ (r = 0.58), ODI (r = 0.42), and SF-36 (r = -0.58).ConclusionThe total score of the Brazilian version of the Bournemouth Questionnaire is valid and reliable to be used with patients with low back pain.
| S-EPMC7817867 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) is used to stratify care. It is unclear if the SBST approach works as well for patients in low- and medium-income countries as for patients from high-income countries.Objectives(1) To investigate whether patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) stratified by the SBST are different at baseline; (2) to describe the clinical course for each SBST subgroup; (3) to investigate the SBST utility to predict clinical outcomes; and (4) to determine which SBST subgroup show greater clinical improvement.DesignThis is a secondary analysis of data derived from a previously published clinical trial.Methods148 patients with chronic nonspecific LBP were included. Pain intensity, disability, global perceived effect, and the SBST were assessed at baseline and at 5, 12, and 24 weeks after baseline. Descriptive data were provided and ANOVA, unadjusted and adjusted regression models, and linear mixed models were used for data analysis.ResultsDuration of symptoms, use of medication, pain, disability, and global perceived effect were different between SBST subgroups. Clinical improvements over a 6-month period were consistently greater in patients classified as high risk. The SBST was able to predict disability but this predictability decreased when the analysis was adjusted for possible confounders.ConclusionClinical outcomes were different between SBST subgroups over 6 months. Adjusting for confounders influenced the predictability of SBST. Patients classified as high risk presented higher improvements in terms of disability.
| S-EPMC8134794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are very few observational methods for analysis of biomechanical exposure available in Brazilian-Portuguese.ObjectiveThis study aimed to cross-culturally adapt and test the measurement properties of the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) and Strain Index (SI).MethodsThe cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties test were established according to Beaton et al. and COSMIN guidelines, respectively. Several tasks that required static posture and/or repetitive motion of upper limbs were evaluated (n>100).ResultsThe intra-raters' reliability for the RULA ranged from poor to almost perfect (k: 0.00-0.93), and SI from poor to excellent (ICC2.1: 0.05-0.99). The inter-raters' reliability was very poor for RULA (k: -0.12 to 0.13) and ranged from very poor to moderate for SI (ICC2.1: 0.00-0.53). The agreement was good for RULA (75-100% intra-raters, and 42.24-100% inter-raters) and to SI (EPM: -1.03% to 1.97%; intra-raters, and -0.17% to 1.51% inter-raters). The internal consistency was appropriate for RULA (α=0.88), and low for SI (α=0.65). Moderate construct validity were observed between RULA and SI, in wrist/hand-wrist posture (rho: 0.61) and strength/intensity of exertion (rho: 0.39).ConclusionThe adapted versions of the RULA and SI presented semantic and cultural equivalence for the Brazilian Portuguese. The RULA and SI had reliability estimates ranged from very poor to almost perfect. The internal consistency for RULA was better than the SI. The correlation between methods was moderate only of muscle request/movement repetition. Previous training is mandatory to use of observations methods for biomechanical exposure assessment, although it does not guarantee good reproducibility of these measures.
| S-EPMC5993941 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the 'Patient Enablement Instrument', we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.MethodsThe PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test-retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.ResultsThe PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.ConclusionsThe PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.Trial registrationNot applicable.
| S-EPMC8033700 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEmotional reactivity is an important construct to consider when studying mental disorders. This study was conducted to translate and assess the factor structure, construct validity and internal consistency of a German version of the Emotion Reactivity Scale (ERS), which is an originally English questionnaire assessing three components of emotional reactivity: sensitivity, intensity and persistence of emotions.MethodsThe German ERS and a range of questionnaires used to assess convergent and discriminant validity were completed by 334 German speaking Swiss participants.ResultsConfirmatory factor analysis showed strong support for a bi-factor model, with evaluation indices pointing to a unidimensional construct rather than to domain specific factors. The questionnaire showed good reliability and the factor structure was similar across gender. The ERS showed convergent validity with general psychopathology, behavioral inhibition, negative affect, orienting sensitivity, depressive symptoms and symptoms of disordered eating, and discriminant validity with behavioral activation and alcohol consumption.ConclusionsFindings support the construct validity of the German ERS and suggest that it assesses a unidimensional construct with high internal consistency. Accounting for the unidimensional nature of the scale and aiming for efficient assessment tools, future research could, based on these findings, develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a short version of the ERS.
| S-EPMC10693029 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundComplicated grief, which is often under-recognized and under-treated, can lead to substantial impairment in functioning. The Brief Grief Questionnaire (BGQ) is a 5-item self-report or interview instrument for screening complicated grief. Although investigations with help-seeking samples suggest that the BGQ is valid and reliable, it has not been validated in a broader population.Methodology/principal findingsA questionnaire was mailed to a randomly selected sample (n = 5000) residing in one of 4 areas of Japan. The BCQ was examined for responders who were bereaved more than 6 months and less than 10 years (n = 915). Non-specific psychological distress was assessed with the K6 screening scale. Multiple group confirmatory factor analysis supported a uni-dimensional factor structure and the invariance of parameters across gender and age. Cronbach's alpha was sufficiently high (alpha = .75) to confirm internal consistency. Average Variance Extracted (0.39) was higher than the shared covariance (0.14) between BGQ and K6, suggesting discriminant validity.ConclusionsThe results of this study support the reliability and validity of the BGQ in the Japanese population. Future studies should examine predictive validity by using structured interviews or more detailed scales for complicated grief.
| S-EPMC3279351 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background contextThe STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) categorizes risk of future disability in patients with low back pain (LBP). Previous studies evaluating the use of SBST in physical therapy (PT) populations do not reflect the ethnic and socioeconomic diversity occurring in clinical practice and lack statistical power to evaluate factors associated with outcomes within each SBST risk category.PurposeThe purpose of this study is to further refine SBST risk categorization for predicting improvements in functional disability with attention toward patient level factors that might guide SBST use in routine outpatient physical therapy practice.Study design/settingThis was a retrospective cohort study that took place within a large academic, tertiary-care health system.Patient sampleThe study cohort consisted of 1,169 patients with LBP who completed a course of outpatient physical therapy from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015 and who completed the patient-reported SBST and modified low back pain disability questionnaire (MDQ) questionnaires as part of standard of care.Outcome measuresImprovement in functional disability defined as decrease in 10 or more points in the MDQ.MethodsMultivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate independent predictors of improvement after PT, which included SBST risk category, baseline MDQ, a two-way interaction term between SBST category and baseline MDQ, prior level of function (independent vs. required assistance), demographic characteristics, number of completed PT visits, and duration of PT episode of care. In exploratory analyses, additional two-way interaction terms between SBST category and the significant predictors were added to the regression model.ResultsMean age of patients in the study cohort was 55.1 years (SD 16.1); 657 (56.2%) were female, 117 (10.0%) were black race, 127 (10.9%) had Medicaid insurance, and 353 (30.2%) had previously received PT for back pain. In all, 35.8% (n=419) patients categorized as low risk SBST category, 40.7% (n=476) medium risk SBST category, and 23.4% (n=274) high risk SBST category. There was an interaction between baseline MDQ and SBST risk category and improvement with PT. For all three SBST categories, higher baseline MDQ was associated with higher probability of improvement, but the effect was less pronounced as SBST risk category increased. Additional factors independently associated with reduced odds of improvement after PT included black race (odds ratio [OR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.72), Medicaid insurance (OR=0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.95), and prior PT (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.67). In exploratory analyses, there was a significant interaction between insurance type and SBST risk category in predicting functional improvement after PT. Patients with Medicare and Medicaid insurance had similar rates of improvement in low and high risk SBST categories but different rates of improvement in the medium risk categories.ConclusionsThe SBST tool predicts outcomes of PT in a cohort of patients receiving outpatient PT for LBP. The odds of improvement varied according to baseline disability and SBST risk status. Race, insurance type, and history of previous PT influenced prediction independent of SBST risk status. Incorporating these variables and the interaction between SBST and baseline disability in outcome models has the potential to refine prediction of outcomes after PT.
| S-EPMC7341439 | biostudies-literature