Advertisement

Rheumatology International

, Volume 38, Issue 7, pp 1267–1275 | Cite as

Exploring the relation between impairment rating by DAS-28 and body function, activity participation, and environmental factors based on ICF hand core set in the patient with rheumatoid arthritis

  • Elif Gür Kabul
  • Ummuhan Baş Aslan
  • Bilge Başakçı ÇalıkEmail author
  • Murat Taşçı
  • Veli Çobankara
Validation Studies

Abstract

Hand problems associated with rheumatoid arthritis lead to subjective impairment, activity limitation, and restrictions on participation. This relation is very complex. Assessment of individuals’ activities is important to determine how hand problems affect not only body functions but also daily life activities. The aim of this study was to link and allocate items of disability questionnaires with ICF components based on ICF hand core set. The other objective was to examine the relationship between impairment and ICF components determined on the basis of disability questionnaires in participants with rheumatoid arthritis. Impairment was evaluated by use of Disease Activity Score-28. Disability questionnaires were Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, Duruoz Hand Index, and Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2 (n = 100). Items of disability questionnaires were linked with ICF hand core set as a result of three expert opinions. Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire covered the highest number of body function categories and Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2 covered the highest number of ICF hand core set. For all questionnaires, while impairment (Disease Activity Score-28) had moderate correlation with subjective impairment (body function scores) and activity/participation; subjective impairment had high and moderate correlation with activity participation. Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale 2 is the most appropriate to perform a more comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment. Clinician’s assessments and impairment levels reported by patients with rheumatoid arthritis are interrelated. Impairment levels reported by patients with rheumatoid arthritis are also affected by environmental factors.

Keywords

Rheumatoid arthritis Outcome measures Disability ICF DAS28 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the support of the Caroline Jane Walker, who has made her English editing and Hande Senol and Pervin Demir, who have made their statistical editing.

Author contributions

EGK, UBA, and BBC designed the study. MT and VC searched databases and performed the selection of studies; EGK, UBA, and BBC wrote the manuscript; EGK, UBA, and BBC analyzed the data; and UBA, BBC, and VC contributed to writing and critically uprising the manuscript and approved the last version.

Funding

This study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Author Elif Gur Kabul, Author Ummuhan Bas Aslan, Author Bilge Başakcı Calik, Author Murat Tasci, and Author Veli Cobankara declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

296_2018_4060_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 36 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Scott DL, Smith C, Kingsley G (2003) Joint damage and disability in rheumatoid arthritis: an updated systematic review. Clin Exp Rheumatol 21:20–27Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Somers T, Shelby R, Keefe F et al (2010) Disease severity and domain specific arthritis self-efficacy: relationships to pain and functioning in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hobroken) 62:848–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Corbacho MI, Dapueto JJ (2010) Assessing the functional status and quality of life of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rev Bras Reumatol 50:31–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Katz PP (1995) The impact of rheumatoid arthritis on life activities. Arthritis Care Res 8:272–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salaffi F, Stancati A (2004) Disability and quality of life of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: assessment and perspectives. Reumatismo 56:87–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    World Health Organization (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stucki G, Cieza A, Ewert T et al (2002) Application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in clinical practice. Disabil Rehabil 24:281–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cieza A, Brockow T, Ewert T et al (2002) Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rehabil Med 34:205–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stucki G, Kostanjsek N, Ustun B et al (2008) ICF-based classification and measurement of functioning. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 44:315–328PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coenen M, Cieza A, Stamm TA et al (2006) 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 Ther 8:R84CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cieza A, Ewert T, Ustun TB et al (2004) Development of ICF core sets for patients with chronic conditions. J Rehabil Med 44:9–11Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kus S, Oberhauser C, Cieza A (2012) Validation of the brief international classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF) core set for hand conditions. J Hand Ther 25:274–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M et al (1993) The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum 36:729–740CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sokka T, Pincus T (2005) Quantitative joint assessment in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 23:58–62Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wells G, Becker JC, Teng J et al (2009) Validation of the 28 joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and European League Against Rheumatism response criteria based on C-reactive protein against disease progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and comparison with the DAS28 based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Ann Rheum Dis 68:954–960CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davis AM, Beaton DE, Hudak P et al (1999) Measuring disability of the upper extremity: a rationale supporting the use of a regional outcome measure. J Hand Ther 12:269–274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Atroshi I, Gummesson C, Andersson B et al (2000) The Disabilities Of The Arm, Shoulder And Hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: reliability and validity of the Swedish version evaluated in 176 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 71:613–618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chung KC, Hamill JB, Walters MR et al (1999) The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ): assessment of responsiveness to clinical change. Ann Plast Surg 42:619–622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Waljee JF, Chung KC, Kim HM et al (2010) Validity and responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis—a multicenter, international study. Arthritis Care Res 62:1569–1577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C (1996) Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand). The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 29:602–608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Düger T, Yakut E, Öksüz Ç et al (2006) Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Questionnaire. Turk J Physiother Rehabil 17:99–107Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dias JJ, Rajan RR, Thompson JR (2008) Which questionnaire is best? The reliability, validity and ease of use of the patient evaluation measure, the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand and the Michigan hand outcome measure. J Hand Surg (European Volume) 33:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, Walters MR et al (1998) Reliability and validity testing of Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg 23:575–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Öksüz Ç, Akel BS, Oskay D et al (2011) Cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability process of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire in a Turkish population. J Hand Surg Am 36:486–492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schoneveld K, Wittink H, Takken T (2009) Clinimetric evaluation of measurement tools used in hand therapy to ort activity and participation. J Hand Ther 22:221–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Duruoz MT, Poiraudeau S, Fermanian J et al (1996) Development and validation of a rheumatoid hand functional disability scale that assesses functional handicap. J Rheumatol 23:1167–1172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaya N, Babadağ K (2004) Health related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Florence Nightingale J Nurs 13:51–72Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S et al (2005) ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med 37:212–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brennan P, Silman A (1992) Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. BMJ 304:1491–1494CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Jordan K et al (2002) Disease-specific, patient-assessed measures of health outcome in ankylosing spondylitis: reliability, validity and responsiveness. Rheumatology 41:1295–1302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stucki G, Cieza A (2004) The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) core sets for rheumatoid arthritis: a way to specify functioning. Ann Rheum Dis 63:40–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mink van der Molen AB, Ettema AM, Hovius SE (2003) Outcome of hand trauma: the Hand Injury Severity Scoring System (HISS) and subsequent impairment and disability. J Hand Surg [Br] 28:295–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Heras PC, Burke FD, Dias JJ et al (2003) Outcome measurement in hand surgery: report of a consensus conference. Br J Hand Ther 8:70–80Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bucher C, Hume KI (2002) Assessment following hand trauma: a review of some commonly employed methods. Br J Hand Ther 7:79–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weigl M, Cieza A, Harder M et al (2003) Linking osteoarthritis specific health-status measures to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Osteoarthr Cartil 11:519–523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Drummond AS, Sampaio RF, Mancini MC et al (2007) Linking the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand to the international classification of functioning, disability, and health. J Hand Ther 20:336–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dixon D, Johnston M, McQueen M et al (2008) The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) can measure the impairment, activity limitations and participation restriction constructs from the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Farzad M, Asgari A, Layeghi F et al (2015) Exploring the relation between impairment rating by AMA guide and activity and participation based on ICF in the patients with hand injuries. J Hand Microsurg 7:261–267CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Forget NJ, Higgins J (2014) Comparison of generic patient reported outcome measures used with upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders: linking process using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). J Rehabil Med 46:327–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Duruoz MT (2014) Assessment of hand function. In: Duruoz MT (ed) Hand Function: a practical guide to assessment. Springer, New York, p 42.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9449-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fransen J, Uebelhart D, Stucki G et al (2002) The ICIDH-2 as a framework for the assessment of functioning and disability in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 61:225–231CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Physical Therapy and RehabilitationPamukkale UniversityDenizliTurkey
  2. 2.Department of RheumatologyMedical Faculty of Pamukkale UniversityDenizliTurkey

Personalised recommendations