Skip to main content
  • Other Publications
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
Advertisement
JCORE Reference
this is the JCORE Reference site slogan
  • Home
  • Most Read
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Folders
    • Help
  • Patients
  • Reference Site Links
    • View Regions
  • Archive

Invited Commentary

Daniel Deutscher, Susan D. Horn
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20140009.ic2 Published 1 March 2014
Daniel Deutscher
D. Deutscher, PT, PhD, Physical Therapy Service, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Tel Aviv, Israel.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan D. Horn
S.D. Horn, PhD, Institute for Clinical Outcomes Research, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Dijkers and the team of scholars aiming to define, classify, and measure specific treatments used within treatment sessions in rehabilitation are to be congratulated for proposing a conceptual framework for a rehabilitation treatment taxonomy (RTT) to describe interventions and evaluate their impact on rehabilitation outcomes.1 Rehabilitation outcomes are influenced by 2 major factors: (1) patient characteristics and (2) treatment processes. The latter can be divided into: (1) factors related to clinical settings including characteristics of caregivers and health care systems and (2) specific treatment activities or interventions. As the authors state, intense efforts have been invested previously to create tools that can accurately measure different dimensions of a patient's quality of life (ie, outcomes measures).2–12 Improvements also have been made in the ability to measure a large number of patient characteristics associated with those outcomes.13–17 Some studies have helped understand how treatment-related factors are associated with outcomes (eg, institutional characteristics such as waiting periods or referral source,14,18,19 clinicians' expertise and educational background,20–22 or clinicians' ability to create a strong working alliance with their patients23–26). However, only a few initiatives have been published in the peer-reviewed literature aimed at creating a treatment taxonomy that has demonstrated utility,15–17,27–29 supporting Dijkers and colleagues' efforts. These initiatives need to be examined carefully to either suggest alternative taxonomies or help refine them. Thus, specific requirements for the intended treatment taxonomy need to be clearly defined to enable such examinations.

The basic concepts presented by the authors include the following requirements. The primary concept presented is to improve specificity of treatment description beyond general descriptions of, for example, treatment time provided by a specific discipline or the functional problem addressed such as gait training. The authors set a goal to specify a link among ingredients, mechanisms of action, and functional targets; they consider these the basis for classifying treatments. An assumption is made that when active ingredients of treatments are identified, the ability to conduct efficacy and comparative effectiveness research or to study clinical practice variations will be improved. Therefore, classifying rehabilitation treatments by active ingredients affecting the target of treatment by a known or hypothesized mechanism of action is proposed. Other requirements included in the proposed conceptual framework for an RTT are mutual exclusivity of treatments distinct from one another by their hypothesized mechanisms of action on rehabilitative (functional) targets, and a need to address factors related to clinical settings mentioned above, specifically related to patient-clinician interactions.

Although these basic RTT concepts seem logical, it is not known whether they can be implemented in order to classify rehabilitation interventions due to several challenges. First, can all or most rehabilitation treatments be identified in a consistent manner on the basis of their known or assumed active ingredients? Second, can each active ingredient be defined in a mutually exclusive way, as presented in the proposed conceptual framework shown in Figure 2 of the article by Dijkers et al? Third, does the proposed conceptual framework make sense when applied to activities and interventions currently used in rehabilitation? If these challenges are met, the proposed RTT should perform well when evaluated using a systematic process. An example of such a process involving 2 steps within the framework of a practice-based evidence study design defined previously30,31 is hereby described.

Step 1 would involve implementing intensive data collection, including data reliability testing.30,31 Measures of RTT accuracy, consistency, and overall scores could be defined and tested by having a group of selected frontline clinicians choose the taxonomic categories associated with a set of written clinical scenarios. Accuracy can be defined as the percentage of interventions that are accurately selected by 90% of the group. Consistency can be defined as the percentage of therapists who accurately select 90% of interventions, mechanisms of action, and targets across all scenarios. An overall RTT score can be calculated by averaging all of the therapists' scores, each one reflecting the number of interventions correctly identified by each therapist. Acceptable levels of accuracy, consistency, and overall RTT scores could be predetermined as 90% or more. If acceptable levels are not achieved, the RTT can be continuously modified and re-evaluated until distinctions that do not make sense in routine rehabilitation described in the scenarios or distinctions that are described in ways that make them difficult to understand and apply in routine rehabilitation scenarios no longer are present in the RTT. Once that is achieved, clinician training is conducted until acceptable levels are met. Only then can any RTT be determined to be stable and valid enough to be implemented within rehabilitation settings. Step 2 would involve field testing in actual clinical practice to evaluate the RTT's usability and ability to predict outcomes.

Because rehabilitation care is multidimensional and relatively complex, with many unknown factors associated with assumed theories,32 it is expected that the conceptual framework proposed by Dijkers et al for an RTT, or any RTT proposed, will need several rounds of evaluation and refinement before being determined to be useful for routine clinical practice. Therefore, it is suggested that the proposed conceptual framework for an RTT include a systematic clinical evaluation process, so its chances of achieving clinical acceptability will be improved.

  • © 2014 American Physical Therapy Association

References

  1. ↵
    1. Dijkers MP,
    2. Ferraro MK,
    3. Hart T,
    4. et al
    . Toward a rehabilitation treatment taxonomy: summary of work in progress. Phys Ther. 2014;94:319–321.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Binkley JM,
    2. Stratford PW,
    3. Lott SA,
    4. Riddle DL
    ; North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Phys Ther. 1999;79:371–383.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Granger CV,
    2. Cotter AC,
    3. Hamilton BB,
    4. Fiedler RC
    . Functional assessment scales: a study of persons after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:133–138.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Hart DL,
    2. Deutscher D,
    3. Werneke MW,
    4. et al
    . Implementing computerized adaptive tests in routine clinical practice: experience implementing CATs. J Appl Meas. 2010;11:288–303.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Hart DL,
    2. Stratford PW,
    3. Werneke MW,
    4. et al
    . Lumbar computerized adaptive test and Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire: relative validity and important change. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42:541–551.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Hart DL,
    2. Wang YC,
    3. Cook KF,
    4. Mioduski JE
    . A computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments produced responsive measures of function. Phys Ther. 2010;90:928–938.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Hart DL,
    2. Wang YC,
    3. Stratford PW,
    4. Mioduski JE
    . A computerized adaptive test for patients with hip impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:2129–2139.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Hart DL,
    2. Wang YC,
    3. Stratford PW,
    4. Mioduski JE
    . Computerized adaptive test for patients with foot or ankle impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:1081–1091.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Hart DL,
    2. Wang YC,
    3. Stratford PW,
    4. Mioduski JE
    . Computerized adaptive test for patients with knee impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:1113–1124.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Hart DL,
    2. Werneke MW,
    3. Wang YC,
    4. et al
    . Computerized adaptive test for patients with lumbar spine impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:2157–2164.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Jette AM,
    2. Haley SM,
    3. Tao W,
    4. et al
    . Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings. Phys Ther. 2007;87:385–398.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Ware J Jr,
    2. Snow KK,
    3. Kosinksi M,
    4. Gandek B
    . SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993.
  13. ↵
    1. Deutscher D,
    2. Hart DL,
    3. Dickstein R,
    4. et al
    . Implementing an integrated electronic outcomes and electronic health record process to create a foundation for clinical practice improvement. Phys Ther. 2008;88:270–285.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Deutscher D,
    2. Horn SD,
    3. Dickstein R,
    4. et al
    . Associations between treatment processes, patient characteristics, and outcomes in outpatient physical therapy practice. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:1349–1363.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. Deutscher D,
    2. Horn SD,
    3. Smout RJ,
    4. et al
    . Black-white disparities in motor function outcomes taking into account patient characteristics, nontherapy ancillaries, therapy activities, and therapy interventions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:1722–1730.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Gassaway J,
    2. Horn SD,
    3. DeJong G,
    4. et al
    . Applying the clinical practice improvement approach to stroke rehabilitation: methods used and baseline results. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(12 suppl 2):S16–S33.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    1. Horn SD,
    2. Deutscher D,
    3. Smout RJ,
    4. et al
    . Black-white differences in patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes in inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:1712–1721.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Fritz JM,
    2. Childs JD,
    3. Wainner RS,
    4. Flynn TW
    . Primary care referral of patients with low back pain to physical therapy: impact on future health care utilization and costs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:2114–2121.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. Gellhorn AC,
    2. Chan L,
    3. Martin B,
    4. Friedly J
    . Management patterns in acute low back pain: the role of physical therapy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:775–782.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. Resnik L,
    2. Hart DL
    . Using clinical outcomes to identify expert physical therapists. Phys Ther. 2003;83:990–1002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Resnik L,
    2. Jensen GM
    . Using clinical outcomes to explore the theory of expert practice in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2003;83:1090–1106.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Resnik L,
    2. Liu D,
    3. Mor V,
    4. Hart DL
    . Predictors of physical therapy clinic performance in the treatment of patients with low back pain syndromes. Phys Ther. 2008;88:989–1004; discussion 1004–1011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Hall AM,
    2. Ferreira ML,
    3. Clemson L,
    4. et al
    . Assessment of the therapeutic alliance in physical rehabilitation: a RASCH analysis. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:257–266.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Hall AM,
    2. Ferreira PH,
    3. Maher CG,
    4. et al
    . The influence of the therapist-patient relationship on treatment outcome in physical rehabilitation: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2010;90:1099–1110.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Horvath AO,
    2. Greenberg LS
    . Development and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory. J Couns Psychol. 1989;36:223–233.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Munder T,
    2. Wilmers F,
    3. Leonhart R,
    4. et al
    . Working Alliance Inventory–Short Revised (WAI-SR): psychometric properties in outpatients and inpatients. Clinical Psychol Psychother. 2010;17:231–239.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    1. Finger ME,
    2. Cieza A,
    3. Stoll J,
    4. et al
    . Identification of intervention categories for physical therapy, based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: a Delphi exercise. Phys Ther. 2006;86:1203–1220.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Taylor E,
    2. Manguno J
    . Use of treatment activities in occupational therapy. Am J Occup Ther. 1991;45:317–322.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Werneke MW,
    2. Hart DL,
    3. Deutscher D,
    4. Stratford PW
    . Clinician's ability to identify neck and low back interventions: an inter-rater chance-corrected agreement pilot study. J Man Manip Ther. 2011;19:172–181.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. DeJong G,
    2. Horn SD,
    3. Conroy B,
    4. et al
    . Opening the black box of post-stroke rehabilitation: stroke rehabilitation patients, processes, and outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(12 suppl 2):S1–S7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Horn SD,
    2. DeJong G,
    3. Deutscher D
    . Practice-based evidence research in rehabilitation: an alternative to randomized controlled trials and traditional observational studies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(8 suppl):S127–S137.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Whyte J
    . A grand unified theory of rehabilitation (we wish!). The 57th John Stanley Coulter Memorial Lecture. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:203–209.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 94 Issue 3 Table of Contents
Physical Therapy: 94 (3)

Issue highlights

  • Toward a Rehabilitation Treatment Taxonomy
  • Applying Evidence to a Patient With HIV Disease
  • Clinical Utility of the BESTest
  • Determinants of Guideline Use in Primary Care Physical Therapy
  • Cognitive Declines, Hazardous Mobility, and Falls
  • Direct Access to Physical Therapy for Low Back Pain in the Netherlands
  • Interrater Reliability of the Berg Balance Scale for People With Lower Limb Amputations
  • AM-PAC “6-Clicks” Inpatient Daily Activity and Basic Mobility Short Forms
  • Functional Gait Assessment in Patients With Parkinson Disease
  • Outcome Measures for Community Mobility and Social Interaction After Transfemoral Amputation
  • Dosing Parameters for Children With Cerebral Palsy
  • Future Directions in Painful Knee Osteoarthritis
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on JCORE Reference.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Invited Commentary
(Your Name) has sent you a message from JCORE Reference
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the JCORE Reference web site.
Print
Invited Commentary
Daniel Deutscher, Susan D. Horn
Physical Therapy Mar 2014, 94 (3) 323-324; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20140009.ic2

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Save to my folders

Share
Invited Commentary
Daniel Deutscher, Susan D. Horn
Physical Therapy Mar 2014, 94 (3) 323-324; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20140009.ic2
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Rothstein Roundtable Podcast—“Putting All of Our Eggs in One Basket: Human Movement System”
  • Rothstein Roundtable Podcast—“Interprofessionalism: Is It Campfire Kumbaya, or the Means to the Triple Aim (Better Health, Better Care, Lower Cost)?”
  • Invited Commentary
Show more Health Policy in Perspective

Subjects

  • Health Services Research
  • Health Policy in Perspective

Footer Menu 1

  • menu 1 item 1
  • menu 1 item 2
  • menu 1 item 3
  • menu 1 item 4

Footer Menu 2

  • menu 2 item 1
  • menu 2 item 2
  • menu 2 item 3
  • menu 2 item 4

Footer Menu 3

  • menu 3 item 1
  • menu 3 item 2
  • menu 3 item 3
  • menu 3 item 4

Footer Menu 4

  • menu 4 item 1
  • menu 4 item 2
  • menu 4 item 3
  • menu 4 item 4
footer second
footer first
Copyright © 2013 The HighWire JCore Reference Site | Print ISSN: 0123-4567 | Online ISSN: 1123-4567
advertisement bottom
Advertisement Top