Measurement tools for adherence to non-pharmacologic self-management treatment for chronic musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review.
Amanda M Hall, Steven J Kamper, Marian Hernon, Katie Hughes, Gráinne Kelly, Chris Lonsdale, Deirdre A Hurley, Raymond Ostelo
Author Information
Amanda M Hall: School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Electronic address: amandahall@george.org.au.
Steven J Kamper: Musculoskeletal Division, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia; EMGO+ Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marian Hernon: School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Katie Hughes: School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Gráinne Kelly: Department of Clinical Therapies, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Chris Lonsdale: Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Deirdre A Hurley: Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Raymond Ostelo: EMGO+ Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
OBJECTIVES: To identify measures of adherence to nonpharmacologic self-management treatments for chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) populations; and to report on the measurement properties of identified measures. DATA SOURCES: Five databases were searched for all study types that included a chronic MSK population, unsupervised intervention, and measure of adherence. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent researchers reviewed all titles for inclusion using the following criteria: adult (>18y) participants with a chronic MSK condition; intervention, including an unsupervised self-management component; and measure of adherence to the unsupervised self-management component. DATA EXTRACTION: Descriptive data regarding populations, unsupervised components, and measures of unsupervised adherence (items, response options) were collected from each study by 1 researcher and checked by a second for accuracy. DATA SYNTHESIS: No named or referenced adherence measurement tools were found, but a total of 47 self-invented measures were identified. No measure was used in more than a single study. Methods could be grouped into the following: home diaries (n=31), multi-item questionnaires (n=11), and single-item questionnaires (n=7). All measures varied in type of information requested and scoring method. The lack of established tools precluded quality assessment of the measurement properties using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the importance of adherence to self-management interventions, measurement appears to be conducted on an ad hoc basis. It is clear that there is no consistency among adherence measurement tools and that the construct is ill-defined. This study alerts the research community to the gap in measuring adherence to self-care in a rigorous and reproducible manner. Therefore, we need to address this gap by using credible methods (eg, COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments guidelines) to develop and evaluate an appropriate measure of adherence for self-management.
