Responsiveness of the "PROM Pediatric Physical Therapy" in Dutch Pediatric Physical Therapy Practices.
Lieze P G Hoogveld, Philip J van der Wees, Reinier P Akkermans and 1 others
PMID 40924904WHAT IT FOUND
The PROM-ppt questionnaire tracks progress well for children with motor problems but fails to reflect change for those with pain-related issues.
Therapists should use it to monitor goal attainment in motor cases, but rely on other measures when pain is the primary complaint.
Key findings
01For children with motor problems, the PROM-ppt showed good responsiveness, with 80% of hypotheses confirmed and adequate ability to discriminate between improved and unimproved children.
02For children with pain-related problems, the PROM-ppt showed poor responsiveness, with only 40% of hypotheses confirmed and inadequate discrimination between improved and unimproved children.
03The PROM-ppt component 'Ability' correlated moderately with perceived improvement in the motor group but showed little to no relationship in the pain-related group.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The subgroup of children with pain-related problems was smaller (n=30) than the recommended minimum (n=50), which may have affected the precision of results for that group. The Global Perceived Effect (GPE) scale used as the comparator has unclear validity in children and may be influenced by the child's current status rather than actual change over time. The study did not compare PROM-ppt results with therapist-assessed measures like Goal Attainment Scaling.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the PROM-ppt is a universal tool for all pediatric physical therapy cases. It is not responsive for children with pain-related problems, meaning a lack of change in the score does not necessarily indicate a lack of clinical improvement in this specific subgroup.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →