Conceptos Categóricos

TRATAMIENTO DEL DOLOR LUMBAR: CUESTIONARIO DE RENDIMIENTO ORIENTADO HACIA LOS OBJETIVOS SOBRE LA SATISFACCION DE LOS FISIOTERAPEUTAS BASADO LA ESCALA DE LIKERT

TRATAMIENTO DEL DOLOR LUMBAR: CUESTIONARIO DE RENDIMIENTO ORIENTADO HACIA LOS OBJETIVOS SOBRE LA SATISFACCION DE LOS FISIOTERAPEUTAS BASADO LA ESCALA DE LIKERT

(especial para SIIC © Derechos reservados)
El dolor lumbar constituye un problema de salud considerable en muchos países y, en ocasiones, puede persistir por más de 12 semanas. Es la causa más común de discapacidad funcional que afecta al grupo de adultos, con una tasa de prevalencia del 84%. El cuestionario de satisfacción del fisioterapeuta fue confiable y válido para determinar su grado de satisfacción en el tratamiento de sujetos con dolor lumbar.
Autor:
Gopal Nambi
Columnista Experto de SIIC

Institución:
Prince Sattam Bin Abdul Aziz University


Artículos publicados por Gopal Nambi

Resumen
Introducción: El dolor lumbar (DL) constituye un problema de salud considerable en muchos países y, en ocasiones, puede persistir por más de 12 semanas. Es la causa más común de discapacidad funcional que afecta al grupo de adultos, con una tasa de prevalencia del 84%. Propósito: Se carece a nivel mundial de un análisis de rendimiento confiable y válido, orientado a objetivos que utilice una escala de Likert para evaluar el grado de satisfacción del fisioterapeuta en el tratamiento de sujetos con DL. Por lo tanto, se elabora y valida un cuestionario utilizado para tal fin. Sujetos y métodos: En la primera fase, los elementos del cuestionario inicial se seleccionaron según los signos y síntomas del DL. En la segunda fase, se analizó la validez hacia los del contenido mediante el envío del cuestionario revisado a 30 fisioterapeutas para sus comentarios. En la tercera y cuarta fases, el cuestionario revisado final se envió a 120 fisioterapeutas, que ejercían su práctica profesional, para verificar la congruencia de los ítems. En la quinta fase, se midieron la validez final (análisis factorial) y la confiabilidad (congruencia interna) del cuestionario. Resultados: El cuestionario final consta de 32 ítems con seis factores. La confiabilidad (coeficientes alfa de Cronbach) para los ítems varió de 0.67 a 0.85 y la estabilidad (coeficiente de división por mitades de Guttman) para la prueba y contraprueba varió entre 0.68 a 0.89. Se realizó una prueba de validez mediante un análisis factorial principal con un puntaje de corte de 0.6. Conclusión: El cuestionario de satisfacción del fisioterapeuta fue confiable y válido para determinar su grado de satisfacción en el tratamiento de sujetos con DL.

Palabras clave
dolor lumbar, cuestionario dolor lumbar


Artículo completo

(castellano)
Extensión:  +/-9 páginas impresas en papel A4
Exclusivo para suscriptores/assinantes

Abstract
Introduction: Low back pain (LBP) is a considerable health problem in many countries and may sometimes last for more than 12 weeks. It is the most common cause of functional disability affecting the adult group with a prevalence rate of 84%. Purpose: A reliable and valid goal-oriented performance analysis using a Likert scale for therapist´s satisfaction in treating subjects with low back pain (LBP) has been lacking globally. Therefore, a questionnaire used for therapist´s satisfaction in treating low back pain (LBP) is developed and validated. Subjects and methods: In the first phase, the items in the initial questionnaire were selected as per the signs and symptoms of low back pain (LBP). In the second phase, the content validity was analyzed by sending the revised questionnaire to 30 physical therapists for their comments. In the third and fourth phases, the final revised questionnaire was sent to 120 practicing therapists for checking the consistency of the items. In the fifth phase, the final validity (factor analysis) and reliability (internal consistency) of the questionnaire were measured. Results: The final questionnaire consists of 32 items with six factors. The reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficients) for items ranged from 0.67 to 0.85 and the stability (Guttman split-half coefficient) for test-retest ranged from 0.68 to 0.89. A validity test was done by a principle factor analysis with a cut-off score of 0.6. Conclusion: The physiotherapist satisfaction questionnaire was reliable and valid for finding the physiotherapist´s satisfaction in subjects with low back pain.

Key words
questionnaire low back pain, Likert scale


Full text
(english)
para suscriptores/ assinantes

Clasificación en siicsalud
Artículos originales > Expertos del Mundo >
página   www.siicsalud.com/des/expertocompleto.php/

Especialidades
Principal: Kinesiología, Ortopedia y Traumatología
Relacionadas: Administración Hospitalaria, Medicina Deportiva, Osteoporosis y Osteopatías Médicas



Comprar este artículo
Extensión: 9 páginas impresas en papel A4

file05.gif (1491 bytes) Artículos seleccionados para su compra



Enviar correspondencia a:
Gopal Nambi Subash Chandra Bose, 11942, Health Rehabilitation, Al-kharj, India
Bibliografía del artículo
1. Mostagi FQ, Dias JM, Pereira LM, et al. Pilates versus general exercise effectiveness on pain and functionality in non-specific chronic low back pain subjects. J Bodyw Mov Ther 19:636-645, 2015.
2. Balagué F, Mannion AF, Pellisé F, et al. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet 379:482-91, 2012.
3. Rubin DI. Epidemiology and risk factors for spine pain. Neurol Clin 25:353-371, 2007.
4. Dagenais S, Tricco AC, Haldeman S. Synthesis of recommendations for the assessment and management of low back pain from recent clinical practice guidelines. Spine J 10:514-29, 2010.
5. Delitto A, George SZ, Van Dillen LR, et al. Low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 42:A1-57, 2012.
6. Besen E, Young AE, Shaw WS. Returning to work following low back pain: towards a model of individual psychosocial factors. J Occup Rehabil 25:25-37, 2015.
7. Deyo RA, Bryan M, Comstock BA, et al. Trajectories of symptoms and function in older adults with low back disorders. Spine 40:1352-1362, 2015.
8. Minkalis AL, Vining RD. What is the pain source? A case report of a patient with low back pain and bilateral hip osteonecrosis. J Can Chiropr Assoc 59:300-310, 2015.
9. Van Middelkoop M, Rubinstein SM, Kuijpers T, et al. A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J 20:19-39, 2011.
10. McCracken LM, Matthews AK, Tang TS, et al. A comparison of blacks and whites seeking treatment for chronic pain. Clin J Pain 17:249-255, 2001.
11. Portenoy RK, Ugarte C, Fuller I, et al. Population-based survey of pain in the United States: differences among white, African American, and Hispanic subjects. J Pain 5:317-328, 2004.
12. Ruehlman LS, Karoly P, Newton C. Comparing the experiential and psychosocial dimensions of chronic pain in African americans and Caucasians: findings from a national community sample. Pain Med 6:49-60, 2005.
13. Day MA, Thorn BE. The relationship of demographic and psychosocial variables to pain related outcomes in a rural chronic pain population. Pain 151:467-474, 2010.
14. Polsunas PJ, Sowa G, Fritz JM, et al. Deconstructing chronic low back pain in the older adult-step by step evidence and expert-based recommendations for evaluation and treatment: Part X: sacroiliac joint syndrome. Pain Med 17:1638-1647, 2016.
15. Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, et al. COST B13 Working Group on Guidelines for Chronic Low Back Pain. Chapter 4. European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J 15:192-300, 2006.
16. Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, et al. Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians; American College of Physicians; American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med 147:478-491, 2007.
17. Carragee EJ, Hannibal M. Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am 35:7-16, 2004.
18. Harris LE, Swindle RW, Mungai SM, et al. Measuring patient satisfaction for quality improvement. Med Care 37:1207-1213, 1999.
19. Roush SE, Sonstroem RJ. Development of the Physical Therapy Outpatient Satisfaction Survey (PTOPS). Phys Ther 79:159-170, 1999.
20. Goldstein MS, Elliott SD, Guccione AA. The development of an instrument to measure satisfaction with physical therapy. Phys Ther 80:853-863, 2000.
21. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd edition. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1994.
22. Raykov T, Marcoulides GA. Introduction to psychometric theory. New York, Routledge, 2011.
23. Spector PE, anonymous. Summated rating scale construction. In quantitative applications in the social sciences. London, SAGE, 1992.
24. Brace N, Kemp R, Snelgar R. SPSS for Psychologists. 3rd edition. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
25. Goossens ME, Vlaeyen JW, Hidding A, et al. Treatment expectancy affects the outcome of cognitive-behavioral interventions in chronic pain. Clin J Pain 21:18-26, 2005.
26. Romão AP, Gorayeb R, Romão GS, et al. High levels of anxiety and depression have a negative effect on quality of life of women with chronic pelvic pain. Int J Clin Pract 63:707-711, 2009.
27. Lipworth WL, Davey HM, Carter SM, et al. Beliefs and beyond: what can we learn from qualitative studies of lay people's understandings of cancer risk? Health Expect 13:113-124, 2010.
28. Gasquet I, Villeminot S, Estaquio C, et al. Construction of a questionnaire measuring outpatients' opinion of quality of hospital consultation departments. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2:2-43, 2004.
29. Roush SE, Sonstroem RJ. Development of the Physical Therapy Outpatient Satisfaction Survey (PTOPS). Phys Ther 79:159-170, 1999.
30. Goldstein MS, Elliott SD, Guccione AA. The development of an instrument to measure satisfaction with physical therapy. Phys Ther 80:853-863, 2000.
31. Oermann CM, Swank PR, Sockrider MM. Validation of an instrument measuring patient satisfaction with chest physiotherapy techniques in cystic fibrosis. Chest 118:92-97, 2000.
32. Wicker AW: Attitudes versus actions: the relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. J Soc Issues 25:41-78, 2010.
33. Etter JF, Perneger TV, Rougemont A. Does sponsorship matter in patient satisfaction surveys? A randomized trial. Med Care 34:327-335, 1996.
34. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 46:1417-1432, 1993.
35. Stroh Wuolle K, Van Doren CL, Bryden AM, et al. Satisfaction with and usage of a handneuro prosthesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80:206-213, 1999.


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Está expresamente prohibida la redistribución y la redifusión de todo o parte de los contenidos de la Sociedad Iberoamericana de Información Científica (SIIC) S.A. sin previo y expreso consentimiento de SIIC.
ua31618