N. prodotti: 0
Totale ordine: € 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
REHABILITATION IN PARKINSON’S DISEASE: PALLIATIVE CARE OR EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE?
Nijkrake M. J. 1,2,3, Keus S. H. J. 1,4, Ewalds H. 1, Overeem S. 1, Braspenning J. C. C. 3, Oostendorp R. A. B. 3, Hendriks E. J. M. 4, Bloem B. R. 1, Munneke M. 1,2,3
1 Donders Center for Brain Cognition and Behavior, Department of Neurology Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre
Nijmegen, The Netherlands
2 Department of Rehabilitation and Allied Health Occupations Radboud University Nijmegen Medical CentreNijmegen, The Netherlands
3 Research Centre of Allied Health Sciences Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Nijmegen, The Netherlands
4 Departments of Physical Therapy and Neurology Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
5 Centre for Evidence Based Physiotherapy Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Aim. The aim of this study was to develop quality indicators for physiotherapy in Parkinson’s disease (PD) according to international criteria.
Methods. Indicators were based on an evidence-based guideline for physiotherapy in PD. Guideline recommendations were transformed into indicators and rated for their relevance by an expert panel. Relevant indicators were incorporated into a questionnaire termed “Quality Indicators for Physiotherapy in PD” (QIP-PD). The QIP-PD was piloted among 105 physiotherapists. The adjusted version was evaluated in 46 physiotherapists with specific expertise in PD and in 795 general physiotherapists. The following clinimetric aspects of the QIP-PD were tested: completeness of answers, response distribution, internal consistency, and discriminative power. The reliability of the QIP-PD was evaluated by interviews among a randomly selected cohort of 32 PD experts and 32 general physiotherapists.
Results. The expert panel selected 16 indicators, which were transformed into an adjusted 17-item QIP-PD. The adjusted QIP-PD was completed by 41 expert physiotherapists and 286 general physiotherapists. Comple-teness of item scores ranged from 95-98%. Six items were excluded from the final analyses as they showed ceiling effect among both groups, or lacked discriminative power. The total QIP-PD score for the 11 items was significantly higher for expert physiotherapists (35.1±4.2) compared to general physiotherapists (22.2±7.7; P=0.01). Internal consistency was good (Crohnbach’s alpha 0.84). QIP-PD scores of therapists and interviewers (correlated using Intraclass Correlations Coefficients) ranged from 0.63 to 0.75.
Conclusion. The QIP-PD is a relevant, feasible, valid, discriminative and reliable instrument to measure adherence to guidelines for physiotherapy in PD. In addition, the results underscore that quality improvement interventions for physiotherapy in PD are needed, as guideline adherence is suboptimal in physiotherapists without specific PD expertise.