Spanish consensus of occupational therapists on upper limb assessment tools in stroke

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION British Journal of Occupational Therapy Pub Date : 2023-06-06 DOI:10.1177/03080226231175574
B. Madroñero-Miguel, C. Cuesta-García
{"title":"Spanish consensus of occupational therapists on upper limb assessment tools in stroke","authors":"B. Madroñero-Miguel, C. Cuesta-García","doi":"10.1177/03080226231175574","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: There is a lack of explicit tool recommendations for upper limb (UL) assessment in stroke, occupational therapists are frequently underrepresented in consensus studies, and the frequency of use of tools is highly variable between countries. The objective was to generate national occupational therapy consensus recommendations on UL assessment tools in stroke, and to classify the tools that achieve consensus according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) components. Methods: Three-round e-Delphi study of national scope. Occupational therapists working in Spain with training and experience in neurorehabilitation were recruited. Rounds were based on the completion of questionnaires on UL stroke assessment tools. Consensus was reached when ⩾75% of experts gave a ⩾7 rating on a nine-point Likert scale. Results: A total of 29 occupational therapists comprised the expert panel. Twenty-three (17.8%) assessment tools achieved consensus and were classified according to the ICF components of body functions and structures (7), activities (11), participation (3) and other (2). Conclusion: The expert panel recommended 23 outcome measures for UL recovery in stroke, representing all ICF components. The consensus recommendations are intended to assist occupational therapists in their clinical decision-making process, and to reduce the heterogeneity of research tools.","PeriodicalId":49096,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Occupational Therapy","volume":"86 1","pages":"648 - 658"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Occupational Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03080226231175574","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: There is a lack of explicit tool recommendations for upper limb (UL) assessment in stroke, occupational therapists are frequently underrepresented in consensus studies, and the frequency of use of tools is highly variable between countries. The objective was to generate national occupational therapy consensus recommendations on UL assessment tools in stroke, and to classify the tools that achieve consensus according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) components. Methods: Three-round e-Delphi study of national scope. Occupational therapists working in Spain with training and experience in neurorehabilitation were recruited. Rounds were based on the completion of questionnaires on UL stroke assessment tools. Consensus was reached when ⩾75% of experts gave a ⩾7 rating on a nine-point Likert scale. Results: A total of 29 occupational therapists comprised the expert panel. Twenty-three (17.8%) assessment tools achieved consensus and were classified according to the ICF components of body functions and structures (7), activities (11), participation (3) and other (2). Conclusion: The expert panel recommended 23 outcome measures for UL recovery in stroke, representing all ICF components. The consensus recommendations are intended to assist occupational therapists in their clinical decision-making process, and to reduce the heterogeneity of research tools.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
西班牙职业治疗师对中风上肢评估工具的共识
引言:中风上肢(UL)评估缺乏明确的工具建议,职业治疗师在共识研究中的代表性往往不足,工具的使用频率在各国之间存在很大差异。目的是就卒中UL评估工具制定全国职业治疗共识建议,并根据国际功能、残疾和健康分类(ICF)组成部分对达成共识的工具进行分类。方法:对全国范围内的e-Delphi进行三轮研究。招聘了在西班牙工作并受过神经康复培训和经验的职业治疗师。轮次基于UL中风评估工具问卷的完成情况。当75%的专家在9分的Likert量表上给出了7分时,达成了共识。结果:共有29名职业治疗师组成专家组。23种(17.8%)评估工具达成共识,并根据ICF组成部分的身体功能和结构(7)、活动(11)、参与(3)和其他(2)进行分类。结论:专家小组推荐了23项卒中UL恢复的结果指标,代表了ICF的所有组成部分。共识建议旨在帮助职业治疗师进行临床决策,并减少研究工具的异质性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
15.40%
发文量
81
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: British Journal of Occupational Therapy (BJOT) is the official journal of the Royal College of Occupational Therapists. Its purpose is to publish articles with international relevance that advance knowledge in research, practice, education, and management in occupational therapy. It is a monthly peer reviewed publication that disseminates evidence on the effectiveness, benefit, and value of occupational therapy so that occupational therapists, service users, and key stakeholders can make informed decisions. BJOT publishes research articles, reviews, practice analyses, opinion pieces, editorials, letters to the editor and book reviews. It also regularly publishes special issues on topics relevant to occupational therapy.
期刊最新文献
Daily living skills in adolescents with and without language disorder, measured using the WHEEL OF INDEPENDENCETM framework Class of international functioning disability and health core sets for autism spectrum disorder: Occupational therapists’ perspective Exploring the usefulness of real-time digitally supported fatigue monitoring in fatigue management: Perspectives from occupational therapists and brain injury survivors Mindset and participation: Correlations among healthy children Exploration of collaborative goal setting in occupational therapy for adults with aphasia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1