Distinguishing theories of dysfunction, treatment and care. Reflections on 'Describing rehabilitation interventions'

Background: An editorial by Wade ( Clinical Rehabilitation 2005; 19: 811 - 18) suggested a method for describing rehabilitation interventions. Objective: To review the editorial critically, and to suggest a more complete theory. Editorial: The editorial develops a model identifying factors that should be considered when analysing a complex rehabilitation problem, and provides a high-level description of the rehabilitation process. It explicitly does not address theories of behaviour change. New ideas: Three additional theoretical models are needed. The first considers the mechanisms that link the factors identified in Wade's model. For example how does self-esteem ( in personal context) actually influence activity performance? This is a theory of dysfunction. The second needs to discuss how treatments alter their target. For example how does cognitive behavioural therapy alter pain perception and/or alter activity performance? This is a theory of treatment. It may be related to the theory of dysfunction. The third, which is less certain, needs to consider the process of giving support ( maintaining the status quo). For example, how should one offer continuing opportunities for meaningful social role performance to someone with major cognitive losses? This is a theory of care. Conclusion: The two models that Wade integrated in his conceptual framework ( the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning ( WHO ICF) and the rehabilitation process) should primarily be considered as descriptive in character. Theories are still needed to understand how activity limitation arises and how treatments alter activity limitation, and possibly how a patient is supported to maintain a certain level of activity

The health status of Q-fever patients after long-term follow-up

Contains fulltext : 96434.pdf (postprint version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, from 2007 to 2009, 3,522 Q-fever cases were notified from three outbreaks. These are the largest documented outbreaks in the world. Previous studies suggest that symptoms can persist for a long period of time, resulting in a reduced quality of life (QoL). The aim of this study was to qualify and quantify the health status of Q-fever patients after long-term follow-up. METHODS: 870 Q-fever patients of the 2007 and 2008 outbreaks were mailed a questionnaire 12 to 26 months after the onset of illness. We assessed demographic data and measured health status with the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument (NCSI). The NCSI consists of three main domains of functional impairment, symptoms and QoL that are divided into eight sub-domains. The NCSI scores of Q-fever patients older than 50 years (N=277) were compared with patients younger than 50 years (N=238) and with norm data from healthy individuals (N=65) and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (N=128). RESULTS: The response rate was 65.7%. After applying exclusion criteria 515 Q-fever patients were included in this study. The long-term health status of two thirds of Q-fever patients (both younger and older than 50 years) was severely affected for at least one sub-domain. Patients scores were most severely affected on the sub-domains general QoL (44.9%) and fatigue (43.5%). Hospitalisation in the acute phase was significantly related to long-term behavioural impairment (OR 2.8, CI 1.5-5.1), poor health related QoL (OR 2.3,CI 1.5-4.0) and subjective symptoms (OR 1.9, CI 1.1-3.6). Lung or heart disease, depression and arthritis significantly affected the long-term health status of Q-fever patients. CONCLUSIONS: Q-fever patients presented 12 to 26 months after the onset of illness severe -clinically relevant- subjective symptoms, functional impairment and impaired QoL. All measured sub-domains of the health status were impaired. Hospitalisation and co-morbidity were predictors for worse scores. Our data emphasise that more attention is needed not only to prevent exposure to Q-fever but also for the prevention and treatment of the long-term consequences of this zoonosis

Measurement of acute nonspecific low back pain perception in primary care physical therapy:reliability and validity of the brief illness perception questionnaire

<p>Background: The eight-item Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire is used as a screening instrument in physical therapy to assess mental defeat in patients with acute low back pain, besides patient perception might determine the course and risk for chronic low back pain. However, the psychometric properties of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire in common musculoskeletal disorders like acute low back pain have not been adequately studied. Patients' perceptions vary across different populations and affect coping styles. Thus, our aim was to determine the internal consistency, test-retest reliability and validity of the Dutch language version of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire in acute non-specific low back pain patients in primary care physical therapy.</p><p>Methods: A non-experimental cross-sectional study with two measurements was performed. Eighty-four acute low back pain patients, in multidisciplinary health care center in Dutch primary care with a sample mean (SD) age of 42 (12) years, participated in the study. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest procedures (Intraclass Correlation Coefficients and limits of agreement) were evaluated at a one-week interval. The concurrent validity of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire was examined by using the Mental Health Component of the Short Form 36 Health Survey.</p><p>Results: The Cronbach's a for internal consistency was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67 - 0.83); and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient test-retest reliability was acceptable: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.53 - 0.82), however, the limits of agreement were large. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient measuring concurrent validity 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46 - 0.80).</p><p>Conclusion: The Dutch version of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire is an appropriate instrument for measuring patients' perceptions in acute low back pain patients, showing acceptable internal consistency and reliability. Concurrent validity is adequate, however, the instrument may be unsuitable for detecting changes in low back pain perception over time.</p>