An integrated approach to the assessment of balance and functional mobility in individuals with history of severe traumatic brain injury.

Individuals who experienced severe Traumatic Brain Injury (sTBI) are often characterized by relevant motor dysfunctions which are likely to negatively affect activities of daily living and quality of life and often persist for years. However, detailed objective information about their magnitude are scarce. The aim of this study was to quantitatively assess the extent of motor deficits in terms of postural control effectiveness under static and dynamic conditions and to investigate the existence of possible correlations between the results of clinical tests and instrumental measures. Postural sway and functional mobility (i.e., instrumented Timed Up and Go test, iTUG) were objectively measured in 18 individuals with sTBI and 18 healthy controls using a pressure plate and a wearable inertial sensor. Additionally, participants with history of sTBI completed the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI). One-way ANOVA and Spearman's rank correlation analysis were employed to examine differences between the two groups and determine potential correlations between the instrumental tests and clinical scales. The results show that people with sTBI were characterized by larger sway area and longer iTUG walking sub-phase. Significant correlations were also detected between RMI scores and iTUG total duration, as well as the walking phase. Taken together, these findings suggest that, even years after the initial injury, individuals with sTBI appear characterized by impaired postural control and functional mobility, which appears correlated with the RMI score. The integration of instrumental measures with clinical scales in the routine assessment and treatment of individuals with sTBI would result in more comprehensive, objective, and sensitive evaluations, thus improving precision in treatment planning, enabling ongoing progress monitoring, and highlighting the presence of motor deficits even years after the initial injury. Such integration is of importance for enhancing the long-term quality of life for individuals with sTBI.

Reliability, responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of the two Fear Avoidance and Beliefs Questionnaire scales in Italian subjects with chronic low back pain undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: The Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) is a widely used outcome measure. There is still a lack of information concerning responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference (MCID), limiting its use for clinical and research purposes. AIM: The aim of this study was to examine reliability, responsiveness and MCID of the two FABQ scales in subjects with chronic low back pain. DESIGN: Methodological research based on a prospective single-group observational study. SETTING: Outpatient, Unit of rehabilitation. POPULATION: Chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS: At the beginning and the end of a multidisciplinary program (8-week), 129 subjects completed the FABQ scales. Reliability was determined as internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest reliability (96-hour interval; N.=64; Interclass correlation coefficient [ICC 2.1]). Responsiveness was calculated both by distribution-based and anchor-based methods, using as external criterion the Global Perceived Effect Scale (GPE: 7 levels), rated by each individual. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha and ICC(2,1) were respectively: 0.75 and 0.90 for FABQ-Physical Activity Scale (FABQ-PA), and 0.85 and 0.95 for FABQ-Work Scale (FABQ-W). Minimum detectable change (MDC95) values were 3.69 points for FABQ-PA, and 5.95 points for FABQ-W. In receiver-operating characteristic curves, splitting GPE data into null/minimal/moderate improvement vs. large improvement (GPE 0-2 vs. GPE 3): 1) for FABQ-PA, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.97 and the best cutoff score identifying meaningful change in fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activity was a change of 4 points; 2) for FABQ-W, the AUC was 0.97 and the best cutoff score for meaningful change in fear-avoidance beliefs about work activities was a change of 7 points. CONCLUSIONS: After triangulation of the above results, a change of 4 points for FABQ-PA and 7 points for FABQ-W were selected as MCID. These two values represent cutoffs that seem to accurately identify meaningful change in fear-avoidance beliefs, according to subject's judgement. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: The present study calculated - in a sample of people with chronic low back pain - the minimal clinically important change of the two FABQ scales (FABQ-Physical Activity Scale and FABQ-Work Scale). These values increase confidence in interpreting score changes, thus enhancing their meaningful use in both research and clinical contexts.

The Italian version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in patients with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Growing attention is being given to physical functioning measures to assess interventions for low back pain (LBP). The Quebec Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (QBPDS) has never been validated in Italian patients, and the aim of the study was culturally adapting and validating the Italian version of the QBPDS (QBPDS-I), to allow its use with Italian-speaking patients with chronic LBP. METHODS: The QBPDS-I was developed by means of forward-backward translation, a final review by an expert committee and a test of the prefinal version to evaluate its comprehensibility. The psychometric testing included structural validity by exploratory factor analysis (EFA), reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC 2.1), measurement error by calculating the minimum detectable change (MDC), construct validity by assessing hypotheses of QBPDS correlations with the Roland Morris Disability Scale (RMDQ), the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI) and a pain numerical rating scale (NRS) (Spearman's correlations). RESULTS: It took one month to develop a consensus-based version of the QBPDS-I. The questionnaire was administered to 201 subjects with chronic LBP and was well accepted. EFA suggested a one-factor 20-item solution (first factor variance explained = 54.7%). Internal consistency (α = 0.95) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.90) were excellent. The MDC was 12 scale points. Construct validity was good as all of the hypotheses were met; correlations: RMDQ (r = 0.40), ODI (r = 0.48) and NRS (r = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: The QBPDS-I is unidimensional, reliable and valid in patients with chronic LBP. Its use is recommended for clinical and research purposes.