LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: RC, RD
Objective. The aim of this study was to establish and validate the measurement properties of the Disability Rating Index (DRI) in a population of adults undergoing hip replacement.\ud \ud Methods. One hundred and twenty-six adults participating in a randomized controlled trial completed the Oxford Hip Score, Harris Hip Score, DRI and EuroQol Group–Five Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires at four time points. The structural validity of the DRI was assessed using principal component analysis. Cronbach’s α was used to determine the internal consistency and scale reliability was also assessed. Correlation between the DRI and the other functional and health-related quality of life scales was used to check criterion validity. DRI responsiveness was estimated and the interpretability of the scale was also assessed by checking for edge effects.\ud \ud Results. Results of analyses showed that the DRI was internally consistent (Cronbach’s α = 0.92), had good association with both function-specific and general health-related quality of life scores and was sensitive to change (smallest detectable change = 2.7). No evidence of edge effects was found. Furthermore, structural assessment of the DRI revealed two novel subscales representing simple tasks and difficult tasks.\ud \ud Conclusions. The DRI is structurally valid, responsive and concurs with functional assessment in adults undergoing hip replacement.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Health USDo, Evaluation HSFCfD, Research, Health USDo, Evaluation HSFCfB, Research, et al. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2006;4(1):79.
    • 2. Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, Simon L, Strand V, Idzerda L. OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials. 2007;8(1):38.
    • 3. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002;11(3):193-205.
    • 4. Mokkink L, Terwee C, Patrick D, Alonso J, Stratford P, Knol D, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research. 2010;19(4):539- 49.
    • 5. Speight J, Barendse SM. FDA guidance on patient reported outcomes. BMJ. 2010;340.
    • 6. Terwee C, Bot S, de Boer M, van der Windt D, Knol D, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007;60:34-42.
    • 7. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2008;61(2):102-9.
    • 8. Salén B, Spangfort E, Nygren A, Nordemar R. The Disability Rating Index: an instrument for the assessment of disability in clinical settings. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1994;47(12)(12):1423-35.
    • 9. Lundin A, Magnuson A, Nilsson O. A stiff and straight back preoperatively is associated with a good outcome 2 years after lumbar disc surgery. Acta orthopaedica. 2009;80(5):573-8.
    • 10. Sjostrom R, Asplund R, Alricsson M. Two-year outcome of a multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation programme focused on range of motion of the neck and back. Work (Reading, Mass). 2010;37(4):341-8.
    • 11. Grotle M, Garratt AM, Krogstad Jenssen H, Stuge B. Reliability and construct validity of selfreport questionnaires for patients with pelvic girdle pain. Physical therapy. 2012;92(1):111-23.
    • 12. Salerno DF, Copley-Merriman C, Taylor TN, Shinogle J, Schulz RM. A review of functional status measures for workers with upper extremity disorders. Occupational and environmental medicine. 2002;59(10):664-70.
    • 13. Bromley Milton M, Borsbo B, Rovner G, Lundgren-Nilsson A, Stibrant-Sunnerhagen K, Gerdle B. Is Pain Intensity Really That Important to Assess in Chronic Pain Patients? A Study Based on the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP). PloS one. 2013;8(6):e65483.
    • 14. Nyberg V, Sanne H, Sjolund BH. Swedish quality registry for pain rehabilitation: purpose, design, implementation and characteristics of referred patients. Journal of rehabilitation medicine : official journal of the UEMS European Board of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. 2011;43(1):50- 7.
    • 15. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK. Functional status and disability questionnaires: what do they assess? A systematic review of back-specific outcome questionnaires. Spine. 2005;30(1):130-40.
    • 16. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(2):185-90.
    • 17. Klassbo M, Larsson E, Mannevik E. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. An extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Scandinavian journal of rheumatology. 2003;32(1):46-51.
    • 18. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. The Journal of rheumatology. 1988;15(12):1833-40.
    • 19. World Health Organization. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). 2001.
    • 20. Boers M, Brooks P, Strand C, Tugwell P. The OMERACT filter for outcome measures in rheumatology. Journal of rheumatology. 1998;25(2):198-9.
    • 21. Costa M, Achten J, Parsons N, Edlin R, Foguet P, Prakas U, et al. Total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of patients with arthritis of the hip joint: single centre, parallel group, assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2012:344.
    • 22. Achten J, Parsons N, Edlin R, Griffin D, Costa M. A randomised controlled trial of total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of young patients with arthritis of the hip joint. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2010;11(1):8.
    • 23. Harris W. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;54(1):737-55.
    • 24. EuroQoL Group T. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199-208.
    • 25. Wamper KE, Sierevelt IN, Poolman RW, Bhandari M, Haverkamp D. The Harris hip score: Do ceiling effects limit its usefulness in orthopedics? Acta orthopaedica. 2010;81(6):703-7.
    • 26. Kalairajah Y, Azurza K, Hulme C, Molloy S, Drabu K. Health outcome measures in the evaluation of total hip arthroplasties: a comparison between the Harris Hip Score and the Oxford Hip Score. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:1037-41.
    • 27. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical care. 1997;35(11):1095- 108.
    • 28. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(6):1523-32.
    • 29. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2013.
    • 30. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(10):1033-9.
    • 31. McHorney C, Tarlov A. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293-307.
    • 32. A randomised controlled trial of standard wound management versus negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of adult patients with an open fracture of the lower limb [Internet].
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article