The spasticity-related quality of life 6-dimensions instrument in upper-limb spasticity: Part II A first psychometric evaluation.
Lynne Turner-Stokes, Klemens Fheodoroff, Jorge Jacinto and 7 others
PMID 34726764WHAT IT FOUND
Among 98 adults with upper-limb spasticity, the SQoL-6D questionnaire was quick, relevant and consistent enough to measure how spasticity affects daily life.
It gave lower quality-of-life scores when weakness or limb problems were worse.
Key findings
01Of 92 patients who reported on completion, 75% said it took less than 10 minutes and all thought it was relevant, but 27% had some difficulty.
02The total score hung together adequately and was repeatable, but home completion gave slightly worse ratings than clinic completion.
03Scores moved with clinician-rated severity and limb function, and people with more severe spasticity or poorer limb function had worse quality-of-life scores.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
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 study used a convenience sample from 8 UK sites, so it may not apply to other countries, languages or more disabled patients. Only 98 patients were analysed and 78 completed the repeat assessment, so the findings are preliminary. Full treatment details were not collected, so scores cannot be linked to any specific focal intervention. The paper did not test responsiveness to treatment change; that was reported separately. Some dimensions had extreme scores, limiting what could be captured for those items. There was a small systematic difference between clinic and home completion, with slightly worse ratings at home. The analyses were not conducted for inferential purposes, and only traditional psychometric methods were used.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that focal treatment for upper-limb spasticity improves quality of life. The study did not compare treatments or measure a treatment effect; it evaluated a questionnaire in people already receiving usual focal care.