TY - JOUR AU - Ostelo R. AU - Hall A. AU - Kamper S. AU - Hernon M. AU - Hughes K. AU - Kelly G. AU - Lonsdale C. AU - Hurley D. AB -

OBJECTIVE: To identify measures of adherence to non-pharmacological self-management treatments for chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) populations, and report on the measurement properties of identified measures. DATA SOURCES: Five databases were searched for all study types that included a chronic MSK population, an unsupervised intervention and a measure of adherence. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent researchers reviewed all titles for inclusion using criteria: adult (>18yrs) participants with a chronic MSK condition; the intervention included an unsupervised self-management component; and it contained a measure of adherence to the unsupervised self-management component. DATA EXTRACTION: Descriptive data regarding populations, unsupervised components, measures of unsupervised adherence (items and response options) were collected from each study by one researcher and checked by a second for accuracy. DATA SYNTHESIS: No named or referenced adherence measurement tools were found, but a total of 47 'self-invented measures' were identified. No 'measure' was used in more than a single study. In terms of methods they could be grouped into: home diaries (n=31); multi-item questionnaires (n=11) and single-item questionnaires (n=7). All measures varied in type of information requested and scoring method. The lack of established tools precluded quality assessment of the measurement properties using COSMIN methodology. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the importance of adherence to self-management interventions, measurement appears to be conducted on an ad hoc basis. It is clear that there is no consistency among adherence measurement tools and that the construct is ill-defined. This study alerts the research community to the gap in measuring adherence to self-care in a rigorous and reproducible manner. Thus, we need to address this gap by using credible methods (e.g. the COSMIN guidelines) to develop and evaluate an appropriate measure of adherence for self-management.

AD - The George Institute for Global Health, Oxford Martin School, The University of Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom; School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Electronic address: amandahall@george.org.au.
Musculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia; EMGO+ Institute, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Faculty of Education & Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Department of Clinical Therapies, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Faculty of Education & Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
EMGO+ Institute, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. AN - 25108098 BT - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation DP - NLM ET - 2014/08/12 IS - 3 LA - Eng LB - MSK N1 - Hall, Amanda M
Kamper, Steven J
Hernon, Marian
Hughes, Katie
Kelly, Grainne
Lonsdale, Chris
Hurley, Deirdre A
Ostelo, Raymond
REVIEW
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Aug 6. pii: S0003-9993(14)00932-0. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.07.405. N2 -

OBJECTIVE: To identify measures of adherence to non-pharmacological self-management treatments for chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) populations, and report on the measurement properties of identified measures. DATA SOURCES: Five databases were searched for all study types that included a chronic MSK population, an unsupervised intervention and a measure of adherence. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent researchers reviewed all titles for inclusion using criteria: adult (>18yrs) participants with a chronic MSK condition; the intervention included an unsupervised self-management component; and it contained a measure of adherence to the unsupervised self-management component. DATA EXTRACTION: Descriptive data regarding populations, unsupervised components, measures of unsupervised adherence (items and response options) were collected from each study by one researcher and checked by a second for accuracy. DATA SYNTHESIS: No named or referenced adherence measurement tools were found, but a total of 47 'self-invented measures' were identified. No 'measure' was used in more than a single study. In terms of methods they could be grouped into: home diaries (n=31); multi-item questionnaires (n=11) and single-item questionnaires (n=7). All measures varied in type of information requested and scoring method. The lack of established tools precluded quality assessment of the measurement properties using COSMIN methodology. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the importance of adherence to self-management interventions, measurement appears to be conducted on an ad hoc basis. It is clear that there is no consistency among adherence measurement tools and that the construct is ill-defined. This study alerts the research community to the gap in measuring adherence to self-care in a rigorous and reproducible manner. Thus, we need to address this gap by using credible methods (e.g. the COSMIN guidelines) to develop and evaluate an appropriate measure of adherence for self-management.

PY - 2014 SN - 1532-821X (Electronic)
0003-9993 (Linking) SP - 552 EP - 62 T2 - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation TI - Measurement tools for adherence to non-pharmacological self-management treatment for chronic musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review VL - 96 ER -