Developing the content of a locomotor disability scale for adults in Bangladesh: a qualitative study
Tóm tắt
Bangladesh has an estimated 17 million adults with disabilities. A significant proportion of them are believed to have locomotor disabilities. There are over 300 non-governmental organizations providing different types of rehabilitation services to them. However, there is no locally developed and validated locomotor disability measurement scale in Bangladesh. The purpose of this study was to develop a locomotor disability scale with disability indicators suitable for adults in Bangladesh. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 purposively selected adults with locomotor disabilities to generate scale items. At the second stage, cognitive interviews were conducted with 12 purposively selected adults with locomotor disabilities in order to refine the measurement questions and response categories. Data were analysed using the framework technique- identifying, abstracting, charting and matching themes across the interviews. For a locomotor disability scale, 70 activities (disability indicators) were identified: 37 mobility activities, 9 activities of daily living, 17 work/productivity activities and 7 leisure activities. Cognitive interviews revealed that when asking the respondents to rate their difficulty in performing the activities, instead of just mentioning the activity name, such as taking a bath or shower, a detailed description of the activity and response options were necessary to ensure consistent interpretation of the disability indicators and response options across all respondents. Identifying suitable disability indicators was the first step in developing a locomotor disability scale for adults in Bangladesh. Interviewing adults with locomotor disabilities in Bangladesh ensured that the locomotor disability scale is of relevance to them and consequently it has excellent content validity. Further research is needed to evaluate the psychometric properties of this scale.
Tài liệu tham khảo
World Health Organization (WHO). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: WHO; 2001.
WHO, World Bank. World report on disability. Geneva: WHO; 2011.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Population and housing census 2011: Bangladesh at a glance. http://www.bbs.gov.bd/WebTestApplication/userfiles/Image/Census2011/Bangladesh_glance.pdf (2011). 08 Aug 2012.
Central Intelligence Agency. The world fact book: Bangladesh. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bg.html (2013). Accessed 25 Feb 2013.
National Forum of Organizations Working with the Disabled (NFOWD). Annual report 2010. Dhaka: NFOWD; 2011.
Williams G. The High Level Mobility Assessment Tool. http://www.tbims.org/combi/himat (2006). Accessed 17 Oct 2011.
van Bennekom CA, Jelles F, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The rehabilitation activities profile: a validation study of its use as a disability index with stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:501–7.
Collen FM, Wade DT, Robb GF, Bradshaw CM. The rivermead mobility index: a further development of the rivermead motor assessment. Int Disabil Stud. 1991;13:50–4.
Lennon S, Johnson L. The modified rivermead mobility index: validity and reliability. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22:833–9.
Badke MB, Di Fabio RP, Leonard E, Margolis M, Franke T. Reliability of a functional mobility assessment tool with application to neurologically impaired patients: a preliminary report. Physiother Can. 1993;45:15–20.
Simondson JA, Goldie P, Greenwood KM. The mobility scale for acute stroke patients: concurrent validity. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:558–64.
Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:142–8.
Üstün TB, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Rehm J. Measuring health and disability: manual for WHO disability assessment schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Geneva: WHO; 2010.
Üstün TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Rehm J, Kennedy C, Epping-Jordan J, Saxena S, von Korff M, Pull C, Project WNJ. Developing the world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88:815–23.
Mallinson S. Listening to respondents: a qualitative assessment of the short-form 36 health status questionnaire. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:11–21.
Schwartz CE, Rapkin BD. Reconsidering the psychometrics of quality of life assessment in light of response shift and appraisal. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:16.
McClimans LM, Browne J. Choosing a patient-reported outcome measure. Theor Med Bioeth. 2011;32:47–60.
Rothman M, Burke L, Erickson P, Leidy NK, Patrick DL, Petrie CD. Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value Health. 2009;12:1075–83.
Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:229–38.
CRP. CRP-Bangladesh. http://www.crp-bangladesh.org (2010). Accessed 15 Mar 2010.
Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG, editors. Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994. p. 173–94.
Willis GB, Artino AR. What do our respondents think we’re asking? Using cognitive interviewing to improve medical education surveys. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5(3):353-6.
McColl E. Developing questionnaires. In: Fayers P, Hays R, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: methods and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 9–23.
Green J, Forster A, Young J. A test-retest reliability study of the barthel index, the rivermead mobility index, the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale and the frenchay activities index in stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23:670–6.
Daving Y, Andren E, Nordholm L, Grimby G. Reliability of an interview approach to the functional independence measure. Clin Rehabil. 2001;15:301–10.
Momin AKM. The levels of integration of people with spinal cord lesion in Bangladesh. PhD thesis. Leeds, UK: The University of Leeds, Department of Sociology and Social Policy; 2003.
Florence JM, Pandya S, King WM, Robison JD, Baty J, Miller JP, Schierbecker J, Signore LC. Intrarater reliability of manual muscle test (medical research council scale) grades in Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy. Phys Ther. 1992;72:115–22.
Abir AKM, Hoque MS. A study on mobility problem of disabled people in Dhaka city. In: 4th annual paper meet and 1st civil engineering congress. Dhaka: Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology; 2011. p. 152–61. December 22-24.
Momin AKM. Impact of services for people with spinal cord lesion on economic participation. Asia Paci Disabil Rehabil J. 2004;15:53–67.
Hoque MM. The road to road safety: issues and initiatives in Bangladesh. Regional Health Forum. 2004;8:39–51.
Handicap International (HI), National Forum of Organisations Working with the Disabled (NFOWD). Ability through accessibility: towards a barrier free environment for persons with disability, a comprehensive study on the situation and prospects for accessibility in Bangladesh. Dhaka: HI & NFOWD; 2005.
Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10:61–3.
Dickson HG, Kohler F. The functional independence measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disabil Rehabil. 1995;17:456.
Mahmud I. Health seeking behaviour of disabled people in Bangladesh: practices and determinants. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing; 2011.
American Occupational Therapy Association. Occupational therapy practice framework: domain and process (2nd ed.). Am J Occup Ther. 2008;62:625–83.
Law M, Baptiste S, McColl MA, Opzoomer A, Polatajko H, Pollock N. The Canadian occupational performance measure: an outcome measure for occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther. 1990;57:82–7.
Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:703–9.
O’Sullivan C, Chard G. An exploration of participation in leisure activities post-stroke. Aust Occup Ther J. 2010;57:159–66.
Parham LD, Fazio LS. Play in occupational therapy for children. St. Louis: Mosby; 1997.
Badia M, Orgaz BM, Verdugo MA, Ullan AM, Martinez MM. Personal factors and perceived barriers to participation in leisure activities for young and adults with developmental disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32:2055–63.
Fleming J, Braithwaite H, Gustafsson L, Griffin J, Collier AM, Fletcher S. Participation in leisure activities during brain injury rehabilitation. Brain Inj. 2011;25:806–18.
The internet stroke centre. The Barthel Index. http://www.strokecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/barthel.pdf (2011). Accessed 05 May 2017.
Kulnik ST, Nikoletou D. WHODAS 2.0 in community rehabilitation: a qualitative investigation into the validity of a generic patient-reported measure of disability. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:146–54.
WHO. The international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps (ICIDH). Geneva: WHO; 1980.