Development of a framework for the evidence-based choice of outcome measures in neurological physiotherapy

Disability and Rehabilitation

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 142-149

  Tyson, Sarah ^a   Watson, Anita ^a   Moss, Sylvia ^a,b   Troop, Hilary ^c   Dean Lofthouse, Gill ^d   Jorritsma, Sjoerd ^c   Shannon, Michelle ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b Salford Primary Care Trust   (United Kingdom)

^c NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE   (United Kingdom)

^d Tameside National Health Service Trust UK ^*

Author keywords

Assessment; Neurological physiotherapy; Outcome measures

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATAXIA; BALANCE IMPAIRMENT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTENT ANALYSIS; COORDINATION; EDEMA; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; MUSCLE TONE; NEUROLOGIC EXAMINATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN; PHYSIOTHERAPIST ATTITUDE; PHYSIOTHERAPY PRACTICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SENSATION; SPASTICITY; STANDARDIZATION; SUBLUXATION; THEMATIC ANALYSIS; VALIDATION PROCESS; VIGNETTE; WALKING DIFFICULTY; WEAKNESS; WORKSHOP;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FOCUS GROUPS; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; NERVOUS SYSTEM DISEASES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PHYSICAL THERAPY (SPECIALTY);

EID: 38149039453     PISSN: 09638288     EISSN: 14645165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09638280701216847     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Hammond, R. (2000) Evaluation of physiotherapy by measuring the outcome. Physiotherapy, 86:4, pp. 170-172.
2. Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (2000) Core Standards of Physiotherapy Practice, Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, London
3. Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party (2004) National Clinical Guidelines for Stroke, Royal College of Physicians, London
4. Rudd, A., Pearson, M. and Georgiou, A. (2000) Measuring Clinical Outcome in stroke (acute care): Clinical effectiveness and evaluation unit, Royal College of Physicians, London
5. Grimmer, K., Bialocerkowski, A., Kumar, S. and Milanese, S. (2004) Implementing evidence in clinical practice: The therapies dilemma. Physiotherapy, 90, pp. 189-194.
6. Pollock, A., Legg, L., Langhorne, P. and Sellars, C. (2000) Barriers to achieving evidence-based stroke rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil, 14, pp. 611-617.
7. van Wijck, F MJ, Pandyan, A. D., Johnson, G. R. and Barnes, M. P. (2001) Assessing motor deficits in neurological rehabilitation: Patterns of instrument usage. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 15:1, pp. 23-30.
8. Dunckley, M., Aspinal, F., Addington-Hall, J. M., Hughes, R. and Higginson, I. J. (2005) A research study to identify facilitators and barriers to outcome measure implementation. Int J Palliative Nursing, 11:5, pp. 218,220-218,225.
9. Kay, T. M., Myers, A. M. and Huijbregts, M PJ (2001) How far have we come since 1992? A comparative survey of physiotherapists' use of outcome measures. Physiother Can, 53:4, pp. 268-275.
10. Lennon, S. (1995) Using standardised scales to document outcome in stroke rehabilitation. Physiotherapy, 81, pp. 200-202.
11. Tyson, S. and Selley, A. (2004) Development of the Stroke Physiotherapy Intervention Record Tool. Disabil Rehabil, 26:20, pp. 1184-1188.
12. Tyson, S. and Desouza, L. (2003) A clinical model for the assessment of posture and balance post-stroke. Disabil Rehabil, 25:3, pp. 120-127.
13. Sackley, C. and Lincoln, N. (1996) Physiotherapy treatment for stroke: A survey of current practice. Physiother Theory Pract, 12, pp. 87-96.
14. Davidson, I. and Waters, K. (2000) Physiotherapists working with stroke patients: A national survey. Physiotherapy, 86:2, pp. 69-80.
15. Nillsson, L. M. and Nordholm, L. A. (1992) Physical therapy in stroke rehabilitation: Bases for Swedish physiotherapists' choice of treatment. Physiother Theory Pract, 8, pp. 49-55.
16. Carr, J. H., Mungovan, S. F., Shepherd, R. B., Dean, C. M. and Nordholm, L. A. (1994) Physiotherapy in stroke rehabilitation: Bases for Australian physiotherapists' choice of treatment. Physiother Theory Pract, 10, pp. 201-209.
17. Lennon, S. and Ashburn, A. (2000) The Bobath concept in stroke rehabilitation; a focus group study of the experienced physiotherapists' perspective. Disabil Rehabil, 22:15, pp. 665-674.