Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Reliability and Validity of Arabic Version of Neck Disability Index in Patients With Neck Pain.

Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Reliability and Validity of Arabic Version of Neck Disability Index in Patients with Neck Pain.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Feb 20;
Mohamed Shaheen AA, Ahmed Omar MT, Vernon H

Study Design. Translation and psychometric testing.Objectives. To cross-culturally adapt the Neck Disability Index (NDI) to Arabic language and to investigate the reliability and validity of the Arabic version of NDI in an Arabic-speaking sample with neck pain.Summary of Background Data. Although largely used, no previous reports exist in the translation process or the testing of the psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the NDI.Methods. Cross-cultural adaptation of an outcome questionnaire. The English version of the NDI was translated into Arabic (NDI-Ar) and back-translated according to established guidelines. Sixty five patients with neck pain completed the NDI -Ar twice over one week, to assess its test-retest reliability. Further psychometric testing was done by assessing internal consistency, construct validity (factor structure) and responsiveness.Results. The internal consistency value (Cronbach alpha) for the NDI-Ar was 0.89. The test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient) was excellent 0.96 (95% CI from 0.93 to 0.97). There was a significant correlation (r = 0.92, P<0.05) between the scores obtained from the first administration of the NDI-Ar and the second administration. Factor analysis demonstrated a 2- factor structure, explaining 67.58% of total variance. The analysis of responsiveness was calculated with an unpaired t-test after one week of treatment and demonstrating a statically significant difference between stable and improved patients (P<0.05).The Spearman's correlation coefficient (rS = 0.81; P = 0.000) revealed strong relation between the change score in the NDI-Ar and Global Rating of Change (GRC). No ceiling or floor effects were detected in the NDI-Ar.Conclusions. The Arabic version of the NDI has a 2-factor 10-item structure and is a reliable, valid and responsive tool that can be used to assess neck pain in Arabic- speaking patients with neck pain. Therefore, it can be recommended for clinical and research purposes. HubMed – rehab

Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of a multidisciplinary intervention compared to a brief intervention to facilitate return to work in sick-listed low-back pain patients.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Feb 20;
Jensen C, Nielsen CV, Jensen OK, Petersen KD

ABSTRACT: Study design. Randomized clinical trial (RCT) of two interventions in 351 employees sick-listed due to low-back pain (LBP) and a subsequent validation study (n = 120) to validate results from subgroup analyses in the original study.Objective. To compose health economic analyses (cost-effectiveness- and cost-benefit analyses) of multidisciplinary versus brief intervention by calculating healthcare sector costs and sick leave benefits.Summary of background data. Both brief and multidisciplinary interventions have been reported to be superior relative to usual care when comparing intervention costs with saved costs for sick leave benefits. We reported similar return to work (RTW) rates in a brief and a multidisciplinary intervention group, but different RTW rates in subgroups.Methods. The brief intervention comprised clinical examination and reassuring advice. The multidisciplinary intervention was conducted by a case manager and a team of specialists. The costs of medicine, health care services and sick leave benefits were calculated based on registers.Results. The mean intervention cost per patient was &OV0556; 1,377 higher in the multidisciplinary intervention (n = 176) than in the brief intervention group (n = 175) and sick leave was not averted. However, sick leave was averted in a subgroup receiving the multidisciplinary intervention and the mean incremental intervention cost for one saved sick leave week in this subgroup (n = 60), who felt at risk of losing their job or had little influence on their work situation was &OV0556; 217. The latter finding was verified in the validation study (n = 28).Conclusions. The brief intervention resulted in fewer sick leave weeks and was less expensive than the multidisciplinary intervention. The multidisciplinary intervention only outperformed the brief intervention in terms of costs in a subgroup of sick-listed employees who felt at high risk of losing their job or had little influence on their work situation. HubMed – rehab