Measuring change in rehabilitation medicine

Europa Medicophysica

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 1-3

  Franchignoni, F ^a,c   Ring, H ^b  

^a IRCCS   (Italy)

^b TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^c IRCCS   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; EDITORIAL; FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; REHABILITATION MEDICINE;

HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; REHABILITATION;

EID: 33646485226     PISSN: 00142573     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Editorial

References (25)

1. Franchignoni F, Michail X. Selecting an outcome measure in Rehabilitation Medicine. Eura Medicophys 2003;39:67-8.
2. Franchignoni F, Salaffi F. Quality of life assessment in Rehabilitation Medicine. Eura Medicophys 2003;39:191-8.
3. Stineman MG. Defining the population, treatments, and outcomes of interest. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;80:147-59.
4. Wheatly B, Dejong G, Sutton JP. Managed care and the transformation of the medical rehabilitation industry. Health Care Manage Rev 1997;22:25-39.
5. Banja DJ, Dejong G. The rehabilitation marketplace: economics, values, and proposals for reforms. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81:233-40.
6. Ring H. Outcomes measure and payment in rehabilitation practice - is there an optimal relationship? In: Marincek C, Burger H, editors. Rehabilitation Sciences in the New Millenium - challenge for multidisciplinary research. Bologna: Medimond - Monduzzi, 2004.p.43-50.
7. nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.p.163-80.
8. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM. On assessing responsiveness of health related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003;12:349-62.
9. Patrick DL, Chiang YP. Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations: conceptual and methodological challenges. Med Care 2000;38(9 Suppl):II14-25.
10. Stucki G, Daltroy L, Katz JN, Johannesson M, Liang MH. Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: the whole may not equal the sum of the parts. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:711-7.
11. Tesio L. Measuring behaviours and perceptions: Rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med 2003;35:105-15.
12. Tennant A. Principals and practice of measuring outcome. In: Barat M, Franchignoni F, editors. Assessment in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Pavia: PI-ME: Maugeri Foundation Books; 2004.16.p.35-43.
13. Wright BD, Linacre JM. Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989;70:857-60.
14. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, New Yersey: Erlaub Publishers, 2001.
15. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG, Wells G, Boers M et al. Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. J Rheumatol 2001;28:400-5.
16. Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 2001;28:406-12.
17. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:395-407.
18. Liang MH, Lew RA, Stucki G, Fortin PR, Daltroy L. Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires. Med Care 2002;40(4 Suppl):II45-51.
19. Lohr KN. Health outcomes methodology symposium: summary and recommendations. Med Care 2000;38(9 Suppl):II194-208.
20. Stineman MG. The story of function-related groups - please first do not harm. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82:553-7.
21. Johnston MV, Wood KD, Fiedler R. Characteristics of effective and efficient rehabilitation programs. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:410-8.
22. Lundgren-Nilsson A, Grimby G, Ring H, Tesio L, Lawton G, Slade A et al. Cross-cultural validity of functional independence measure items in stroke: a study using Rasch analysis. J Rehabil Med 2005;37:23-31.
23. Stineman MG. Prospective payment, prospective challenge. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:1802-5.
24. Clauser SB, Bierman, AS. Significance of functional status data for payment and quality. Health Care Financ Rev 2003;24:1-12.
25. Dejong G, Horn SD, Gassaway JA, Slavin MD, Dijkers MP. Toward a taxonomy of rehabilitation interventions: using an inductive approach to examine the "black box" of rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:678-86.