Objective: To investigate the internal consistency, validity and responsiveness of the Rehabilitation Activities Profile (RAP; a rehabilitation tool structuring the multidisciplinary team care process) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Methods: In 85 rheumatoid arthritis patients admitted to a rheumatology clinic the RAP was applied at admission, at discharge, and six weeks thereafter. Additional assessments included measures of physical and psychological functioning, disease activity and quality of life. The internal consistency of the RAP was determined with Cronbach's alpha. Associations between the RAP and other outcome measures were determined by Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Responsiveness measures included the standardized response mean (SRM), effect size (ES) and responsiveness ratio (RR).
Results: Cronbach's alpha of the RAP total score was 0.78. The RAP total score correlated significantly with all other outcome measures. The mean RAP total score improved from 15.2 to 13.2 at discharge (change -2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.4 to -0.7) and to 11.5 (change -3.7; 95% CI -3.9 to -1.5) six weeks thereafter. The responsiveness of the RAP total score was low (standardized response mean -0.34, effect size -0.30) to high (responsiveness ratio -0.87) at discharge and moderate (standardized response mean -0.54, effect size -0.55) to high (responsiveness ratio -1.56) six weeks thereafter.
Conclusions: The RAP appeared to be an internally consistent, valid and responsive measure to reflect limitations on the level of activities and participation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis admitted for multidisciplinary team care.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Scott DL, Smith C., Kingsley G.What are the consequences of early rheumatoid arthritis for the individual?Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol2005; 19: 117-36.
2.
Davis RM, Wagner EG, Groves T.Advances in managing chronic disease. Research, performance measurement, and quality improvement are the key. BMJ2000 ; 320: 525-26.
3.
Lambert CM, Hurst NP, Forbes JF, Lochhead A., Macleod M., Nuki G.Is day care equivalent to inpatient care for active rheumatoid arthritis? Randomised controlled clinical and economic evaluation. BMJ1998; 316: 965-69.
4.
Tijhuis GJ, Zwinderman AH, Hazes JM, Breedveld FC, Vlieland PMTwo-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of a clinical nurse specialist intervention, inpatient, and day patient team care in rheumatoid arthritis . J Adv Nurs2003; 41: 34-43.
5.
Vliet Vlieland TPM.Multidisciplinary team care and outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol2004; 16: 153-56.
6.
Siegert CE, Vleming LJ, Vandenbroucke JP, Cats A.Measurement of disability in Dutch rheumatoid arthritis patients. Clin Rheumatol1984; 3: 305-309.
7.
World Health Organization.ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. WHO, 2001.
8.
Wressle E., Lindstrand J., Neher M., Marcusson J., Henriksson C.The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure as an outcome measure and team tool in a day treatment programme. Disabil Rehabil2003; 25: 497-506.
9.
Kjeken I., Slatkowsky-Christensen B., Kvien TK, Uhlig T.Norwegian version of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in patients with hand osteoarthritis: validity, responsiveness, and feasibility . Arthritis Rheum2004; 51: 709-15.
10.
Schochat T. , Pilz C., Neuner R.The Indicators of Rehab Status questionnaire version 3 (IRES-3) in 1818 rehabilitees with musculoskeletal diseases. Rehabilitation (Stuttg)2003 ; 42: 236-44, In German.
11.
Buhrlen B., Gerdes N., Jackel WHDevelopment and psychometric testing of a patient questionnaire for medical rehabilitation (IRES-3). Rehabilitation (Stuttg)2005; 44: 63-74, In German.
12.
Van Bennekom CAM , Jelles F., Lankhorst GJRehabilitation Activities Profile: the ICIDH as a framework for a problem-oriented assessment method in rehabilitation medicine. Disabil Rehabil1995; 17: 169-75.
13.
Jelles F., van Bennekom CA, Lankhorst GJ, Sibbel CJ, Bouter LMInter- and intra-rater agreement of the Rehabilitation Activities Profile . J Clin Epidemiol1995; 48: 407-16.
14.
Van Bennekom CA, Jelles F., Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LMThe Rehabilitation Activities Profile: a validation study of its use as a disability index with stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1995 ; 76: 501-507.
15.
Van Bennekom CA, Jelles F., Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LMResponsiveness of the rehabilitation activities profile and the Barthel index. J Clin Epidemiol1996; 49: 39-44.
16.
World Health Organization.ICIDH: International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicap . WHO, 1980.
17.
Verhoef J., Toussaint PJ, Zwetsloot-Schonk JHM, Breedveld FC, Putter H., Vliet Vlieland TPM.Effectiveness of the introduction of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based rehabilitation tool in multidisciplinary team care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum2007; 57: 240-48.
18.
Van Balen R. , Essink-Bot ML, Steyerberg E., Cools H., Habbema DFQuality of life after hip fracture: a comparison of four health status measures in 208 patients . Disabil Rehabil2003; 25: 507-19.
19.
Van Baalen B., Odding E., van Woensel MPC, van Kessel MA, Roebroeck ME, Stam HJReliability and sensitivity to change of measurement instruments used in a traumatic brain injury population. Clin Rehabil2006; 20: 686-700.
20.
De Groot IJ , Post MW, Van Heuveln T., Van Den Berg LH, Lindeman E.Measurement of decline of functioning in persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: responsiveness and possible applications of the Functional Independence Measure, Barthel Index, Rehabilitation Activities Profile and Frenchay Activities Index. Amyotroph Lateral Scler2006; 7: 167-72.
21.
Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum1988; 31: 315-24.
22.
Tijhuis GJ, Zwinderman AH, Hazes JMW, van den Hout WB, Breedveld FC, Vliet Vlieland TPM.A randomized comparison of care provided by a clinical nurse specialist, inpatient team care, and day patient team care in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum2002; 47: 525-31.
23.
Van den Hout WB, Tijhuis GJ, Zwinderman AH, Hazes JMW, Breedveld FC, Vliet Vlieland TPM.Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of multidisciplinary care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised comparison of clinical nurse specialist care, inpatient team care, and day patient care. Ann Rheum Dis2003; 62: 308-15.
24.
Tugwell P., Bombardier C., Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Grace E., Hanna B.The MACTAR Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire - an individualized functional priority approach for assessing improvement in physical disability in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol1987; 14: 446-51.
25.
Grace EM, Gerecz EM, Kassam YB, Buchanan HM, Buchanan WW, Tugwell PS50-foot walking time: a critical assessment of an outcome measure in clinical therapeutic trials of antirheumatic drugs. Br J Rheumatol1988; 27: 372-74.
26.
Newcomer KL , Krug HE, Mahowald MLValidity and reliability of the timed-stands test for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic diseases. J Rheumatol1993; 20: 21-27.
27.
Van den Ende CH, Hazes JM, le Cessie S. et al. Comparison of high and low intensity training in well controlled rheumatoid arthritis. Results of a randomised clinical trial. Ann Rheum Dis1996; 55: 798-805.
28.
Jones E., Hanly JG, Mooney R. et al. Strength and function in the normal and rheumatoid hand. J Rheumatol1991; 18: 1313-18.
29.
Vlieland TP , van den Ende CH, Breedveld FC, Hazes JMEvaluation of joint mobility in rheumatoid arthritis trials: the value of the EPM-range of motion scale. J Rheumatol1993; 20: 2010-14.
30.
Evers AW, Taal E., Kraaimaat FW et al. A comparison of two recently developed health status instruments for patients with arthritis: Dutch-AIMS2 and IRGL. Br J Rheumatol1998; 37: 157-64.
31.
Prevoo ML, van 't Hof MA, Kuper HH, van Leeuwen MA, van de Putte LB, van Riel PLModified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts. Development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum1995; 38: 44-48.
32.
Van Gestel AM, Anderson JJ, van Riel PL et al. and the American College of Rheumatology European League of Associations for Rheumatology. ACR and EULAR improvement criteria have comparable validity in rheumatoid arthritis trials. J Rheumatol1999; 26: 705-11.
33.
De Jong Z., van der Heijde DM, McKenna SP, Whalley D.The reliability and construct validity of the RAQoL: a rheumatoid arthritis-specific quality of life instrument. Br J Rheumatol1997; 36: 878-83.
34.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol2007; 60: 34-42.
35.
Harrison MJ , Hassell A., Dawes PT et al. The overall status in rheumatoid arthritis (OSRA) measure-further evidence to support its use in clinical practice. Rheumatology2007; 46: 849-55.
36.
Liang MH, Lew RA, Stucki G., Fortin PR, Daltroy L.Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires . Med Care2002; 40(4 suppl): 1145-51.
37.
Guyatt G., Walter S., Norman G.Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments . J Chronic Dis1987; 40: 171-78.
38.
Redelmeier DA, Lorig K.Assessing the clinical importance of symptomatic improvements. An illustration in rheumatology. Arch Intern Med1993; 153: 1337-42.
39.
Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MGComparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation . Med Care1990; 28: 632-42.
40.
Wanders AJ, Gorman JD, Davis JC, Landewe RB, van der Heijde DMResponsiveness and discriminative capacity of the assessments in ankylosing spondylitis disease-controlling antirheumatic therapy core set and other outcome measures in a trial of etanercept in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum2004; 51: 1-8.
41.
Van de Weg FB, Kuik DJ, Lankhorst GJPost-stroke depression and functional outcome: a cohort study investigating the influence of depression on functional recovery from stroke. Clin Rehabil1999; 13: 268-72.
42.
Stucki G., Cieza A., Geyh S. et al. ICF Core Sets for rheumatoid arthritis. J Rehabil Med2004; 44(suppl): 87-93.
43.
Coenen M., Cieza A., Stamm TA, Amann E., Kollerits B., Stucki G.Validation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for rheumatoid arthritis from the patient perspective using focus groups. Arthritis Res Ther2006 ; 8: R84.
44.
Stamm TA, Cieza A., Coenen M. et al. Validating the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Comprehensive Core Set for Rheumatoid Arthritis from the patient perspective: a qualitative study. Arthritis Rheum2005; 53: 431-39.
45.
Stucki G., Ewert T.How to assess the impact of arthritis on the individual patient: the WHO ICF . Ann Rheum Dis2005; 64: 664-68.
46.
Van Bennekom CAM , Jelles F., Lankhorst GJRevalidatie Activiteiten Profiel, handleiding en beschrijving. VU Uitgeverij, 1994: 15-21. In Dutch.
47.
Petersson IFEvolution of team care and evaluation of effectiveness . Curr Opin Rheumatol2005; 17: 160-63.
