图书馆订阅: Guest
Begell Digital Portal Begell 数字图书馆 电子图书 期刊 参考文献及会议录 研究收集
身体康复医学评论综述
SJR: 0.121 SNIP: 0.228 CiteScore™: 0.5

ISSN 打印: 0896-2960
ISSN 在线: 2162-6553

身体康复医学评论综述

DOI: 10.1615/CritRevPhysRehabilMed.2018025217
pages 77-92

Content Comparison among Commonly Used Self-Reported Fatigue Instruments in Post-Polio Syndrome

Surajo Kamilu Sulaiman
School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Louise D. Acton Building, 31 George Street, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 Canada
Marcia Finlayson
School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Louise D. Acton Building, 31 George Street, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 Canada
Kathleen Norman
School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Louise D. Acton Building, 31 George Street, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 Canada
Heather Michelle Aldersey
School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Louise D. Acton Building, 31 George Street, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 Canada
Vincent G. DePaul
School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Louise D. Acton Building, 31 George Street, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 Canada

ABSTRACT

Various self-reported fatigue instruments are commonly used to assess fatigue in post-polio syndrome. It is unclear whether these instruments are conceptually multidimensional based on the biopsychosocial model of disability. In this review, we identity the commonly used fatigue instruments in post-polio syndrome and analyze their contents based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). A literature search was conducted to identify commonly used fatigue instruments in post-polio syndrome. Items from the instruments were extracted, and concepts therein were identified and linked to the ICF categories based on the standardized ICF linking rules. Content density, content diversity, and measure of ICF linkage were analyzed for these instruments. Our findings revealed that the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), and the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) are the most commonly used fatigue instruments in post-polio syndrome. The FSS, MFIS, and MFI have a content densities of 2.2,1.6 and 1.3, respectively; content diversities of 0.4, 0.5, and 0.5, respectively; and ICF linkages of 90% 85%, and 85%, respectively. The FSS, MFIS, and MFI are generally consistent with the ICF domains of body function, activities, and participation. The FSS assesses mainly physical and mental fatigue, whereas the MFIS and MFI mainly assess the dimension of mental fatigue. Therefore, these scales cannot be used interchangeably.


Articles with similar content:

Level of Sports Participation and Performance among People with Spinal Cord Injury
Critical Reviews™ in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Vol.31, 2019, issue 1
Ruturaj Shete, Bela Agarwal, Yuvraj Singh, Rajani Mullerpatan, Oshin Amberkar
Three-Dimensional Biomechanical Model of Wrist Dynamics during Activities of Daily Living
Critical Reviews™ in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Vol.28, 2016, issue 1-2
Nikhil Kurapati, Roger A. Daley, Jessica M. Fritz, Patrick Roscher, Gerald F. Harris
Cost of Antibiotic Beads is Justified: A Study of Open Fracture Wounds and Chronic Osteomyelitis
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.17, 2007, issue 3
Brenton A. Wright, David Seligson, Craig S. Roberts, Arthur L. Malkani, Steven J. McCabe
The Emerging Role of Vitamin D in Sports Physical Therapy: A Review
Critical Reviews™ in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Vol.27, 2015, issue 1
Tom D. Belmaggio, Saurabh P. Mehta, Zain N. Qazi, Franklin D. Shuler, Daniel S. Kahn
Thirty-Day Readmission Rates Comparing Specific Cruciate Retaining and Posterior Stabilizing Knee Arthroplasties to the National Readmission Rates
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.25, 2015, issue 4
Todd P. Pierce, Julio J. Jauregui, Jeffery J. Cherian, Michael A. Mont, Randa K Elmallah