Total amount: € 0,00
Official Journal of the , , , ,
In association with
Indexed/Abstracted in: CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,063
Online ISSN 1973-9095
Meesters J. 1, 2, 3, Pont W. 2, Beaart-Van De Voorde L. 1, Stamm T. 4, Vliet Vlieland T. 3, 5, 6
1 Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands;
2 Department of Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands;
3 Sophia Rehabilitation Center, The Hague, The Netherlands;
4 Department of Internal Medicine III, Division of Rheumatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria;
5 Department of Orthopedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands;
6 Rijnlands Rehabilitation Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
BACKGROUND: Despite the advocated use of rehabilitation tools in clinical rehabilitation of with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, little is known about the representation of the patient perspective in these tools.
AIM: Aim of the study was to explore the experiences of RA patients with rehabilitation and the coverage by rehabilitation tools.
DESIGN AND POPULATION: Qualitative focus group study with RA patients about experiences with rehabilitation.
SETTING: Rheumatology rehabilitation clinic of a Dutch university hospital.
METHODS: Focus groups were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. From the meaningful units, concepts were extracted and linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Rehabilitation tools validated for RA were identified using a structured literature search. Using the ICF as common framework, we determined for each concept identified in the focus groups the coverage by each rehabilitation tool.
RESULTS: Nineteen patients participated in 4 focus groups. Fifty-one concepts were identified in 368 meaningful units derived from the transcribed data. From the literature the ICF Core Sets for RA, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, Rehabilitation Activities Profile and WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II were elected. The concepts from the focus groups were best covered by the ICF Core Sets (44 out of 51; 86%), followed by the WHODAS II (39%), RAP (35%) and COPM (16%).
CONCLUSION: With the exception of the ICF Core Sets for RA, current rehabilitation tools poorly cover the RA patients’ perception on rehabilitation.
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: The ICF Core Sets can serve as a checklist to guide multidisciplinary assessment, goal-setting and evaluation in RA rehabilitation.