Responsiveness and clinical utility of the geriatric self-efficacy index for urinary incontinence

OBJECTIVES: To report on the responsiveness testing and clinical utility of the 12-item Geriatric Self-Efficacy Index for Urinary Incontinence (GSE-UI). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Six urinary incontinence (UI) outpatient clinics in Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling incontinent adults aged 65 and older. MEASUREMENTS: The abridged 12-item GSE-UI, measuring older adults' level of confidence for preventing urine loss, was administered to all new consecutive incontinent patients 1 week before their initial clinic visit, at baseline, and 3 months posttreatment. At follow-up, a positive rating of improvement in UI was ascertained from patients and their physicians using the Patient's and Clinician's Global Impression of Improvement scales, respectively. Responsiveness of the GSE-UI was calculated using Guyatt's change index. Its clinical utility was determined using receiver operating curves. RESULTS: Eighty-nine of 228 eligible patients (39.0%) participated (mean age 72.6+5.8, range 65–90). At 3-month follow-up, 22.5% of patients were very much better, and 41.6% were a little or much better. Guyatt's change index was 2.6 for patients who changed by a clinically meaningful amount and 1.5 for patients having experienced any level of improvement. An improvement of 14 points on the 12-item GSE-UI had a sensitivity of 75.1% and a specificity of 78.2% for detecting clinically meaningful changes in UI status. Mean GSE-UI scores varied according to improvement status (P<.001) and correlated with changes in quality-of-life scores (r=0.7, P<.001) and reductions in UI episodes (r=0.4, P=.004). CONCLUSION: The GSE-UI is responsive and clinically useful

Family Physicians’ Attitudes and Practices Regarding Assessments of Medical Fitness to Drive in Older Persons

BACKGROUND: Higher crash rates per mile driven in older drivers have focused attention on the assessment of older drivers. OBJECTIVE: To examine the attitudes and practices of family physicians regarding fitness-to-drive issues in older persons. DESIGN: Survey questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: The questionnaire was sent to 1,000 randomly selected Canadian family physicians. Four hundred sixty eligible physicians returned completed questionnaires. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported attitudes and practices towards driving assessments and the reporting of medically unsafe drivers. RESULTS: Over 45% of physicians are not confident in assessing driving fitness and do not consider themselves to be the most qualified professionals to do so. The majority (88.6%) feel that they would benefit from further education in this area. About 75% feel that reporting a patient as an unsafe driver places them in a conflict of interest and negatively impacts on the patient and the physician–patient relationship. Nevertheless, most (72.4%) agree that physicians should be legally responsible for reporting unsafe drivers to the licensing authorities. Physicians from provinces with mandatory versus discretionary reporting requirements are more likely to report unsafe drivers (odds ratio [OR], 2.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58 to 4.91), but less likely to perform driving assessments (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.85). Most driving assessments take between 10 and 30 minutes, with much variability in the components included. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians lack confidence in performing driving assessments and note many negative consequences of reporting unsafe drivers. Education about assessing driving fitness and approaches that protect the physician–patient relationship when reporting occurs are needed

A telephone interview compared to a face-to-face interview in determining health status of patients discharged home from a rehabilitation hospital

This study examined the comparability of estimates of health status elicited through a telephone interview and a face-to-face interview. Standardized measures of cognition, mood, functional performance, and community reintegration were administered, over the telephone and then again in the home, to 366 individuals up to five years after their discharge from a rehabilitation hospital. Information on illness, hospitalizations, falls, and medication use was also elicited. Half of the telephone interviews were performed by health professionals, the other half by trained lay interviewers: all of the home interviews were performed by health professionals. Proxy respondents provided information for those unable to respond for themselves. The prevalence and degree of disability reported were similar for the telephone and face-to-face interviews. The reliability coefficients indicated moderate to substantial agreement between the modes on the majority of indices and health related questions. Discord between modes, when present, was greatest for individuals with moderate and severe disability, with less frequent reporting of disability on the telephone. The results support the use of lay persons to administer a structured telephone interview and the use of proxy respondents when the patient is unable to participate. This study has shown the telephone assessment of health status to be a valuable means of determining health status of individuals in the community who are potentially at high risk for morbidity and functional decline

Stroke Rehabilitation information for clients and families: Assessing the quality of the StrokEngine-Family website

This study: (i) Identified the availability of scientifically-based information on the internet regarding stroke rehabilitation intended for those who have experienced a stroke and their families; and, (ii) assessed the usability of a newly created website on stroke rehabilitation for laypersons, StrokEngine-Family

From what we know to what we do: translating stroke rehabilitation research into practice

C2 - Journal Articles Unreferee

The YOU CALL-WE CALL randomized clinical trial: Impact of a multimodal support intervention after a mild stroke

Free to read Background Comparison of a multimodal intervention WE CALL (study initiated phone support/information provision) versus a passive intervention YOU CALL (participant can contact a resource person) in individuals with first mild stroke. Methods and Results This study is a single-blinded randomized clinical trial. Primary outcome includes unplanned use of health services (participant diaries) for adverse events and quality of life (Euroquol-5D, Quality of Life Index). Secondary outcomes include planned use of health services (diaries), mood (Beck Depression Inventory II), and participation (Assessment of Life Habits [LIFE-H]). Blind assessments were done at baseline, 6, and 12 months. A mixed model approach for statistical analysis on an intention-to-treat basis was used where the group factor was intervention type and occasion factor time, with a significance level of 0.01. We enrolled 186 patients (WE=92; YOU=94) with a mean age of 62.5±12.5 years, and 42.5% were women. No significant differences were seen between groups at 6 months for any outcomes with both groups improving from baseline on all measures (effect sizes ranged from 0.25 to 0.7). The only significant change for both groups from 6 months to 1 year (n=139) was in the social domains of the LIFE-H (increment in score, 0.4/9±1.3 [95% confidence interval, 0.1–0.7]; effect size, 0.3). Qualitatively, the WE CALL intervention was perceived as reassuring, increased insight, and problem solving while decreasing anxiety. Only 6 of 94 (6.4%) YOU CALL participants availed themselves of the intervention. Conclusions Although the 2 groups improved equally over time, WE CALL intervention was perceived as helpful, whereas YOU CALL intervention was not used