THE "QUALITOUCH ACTIVITY INDEX" AS A PRACTICAL CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL TO MONITOR PHYSIO- AND TRAINING THERAPY: A COMPARISON WITH "PROMIS GLOBAL HEALTH 10" IN MUSCULOSKELETAL CONDITIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2522-1795.2026.20.1.4Słowa kluczowe:
QUALITOUCH Activity index Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Quality Management, Health care outcomes, Musculoskeletal disorders, Physical TherapyAbstrakt
Background. From the patient's perspective, satisfaction with treatment and the achievement of therapeutic goals are key factors in assessing the quality of care. Although there are various instruments that measure these aspects separately, there is no instrument that combines everything in one. That is why the “QUALITOUCH Activity Index” was developed. In addition to these criteria, the "QUALITOUCH Activity Index" records the extent to which pain or discomfort limits individuals in their everyday activities and lives.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the results from the "QUALITOUCH Activity Index" with those from the "Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Health 10" ("PROMIS GH") in terms of limitations in everyday life and daily activities, as well as quality of life and limitations in quality of life in patients with musculoskeletal disorders in the German-speaking part of Switzerland.
Method: Anonymized data sets from a total of 57 participants were retrospectively evaluated. The "QUALITOUCH Activity Index" was digitally recorded before the first therapy session as part of the treatment-related data collection. The "PROMIS GH" data was collected digitally within the next 24 hours. Data analysis was performed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients (rho), Cohen's kappa parallel reliability (convergent validity) and Cronbach's alpha (internal consistency).
Results: Anonymized data from 57 volunteer patients (42 females, 15 males; mean age 51.7±12.8 years) recruited in Switzerland and presenting with a wide range of musculoskeletal disorders were available for analysis. The highest Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient (rho = 0.92; p < 0.05) was observed between the item scores “health status” (“QUALITOUCH Activity Index”) and “health status” (“PROMIS GH”). Strong correlations (rho ≥ 0.50) were identified in eight additional item-score comparisons, all statistically significant, including “health status” (“QUALITOUCH Activity Index”) and “quality of life” (“PROMIS GH”) (rho = 0.78, p < 0.001), as well as “maximum pain” (“QUALITOUCH Activity Index”) and “average pain” (“PROMIS GH”) (rho = 0.73, p < 0.001). Parallel reliability demonstrated excellent agreement between the “health status” item (“QUALITOUCH Activity Index”) and the corresponding item (“PROMIS GH”) (κ = 0.94). Three values in the matrix showed squared kappa coefficients above 0.75, while kappa values between 0.40 and 0.75 were observed in six comparisons. Internal consistency of the “QUALITOUCH Activity Index” was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73) across seven item scores.
Conclusion: The partial validation of the "QUALITOUCH Activity Index" against the established "PROMIS GH" suggest that the "QUALITOUCH Activity Index" has the potential to be used as an easy-to-apply instrument in physiotherapeutic practice for patient assessment in everyday life, leisure and work activities.
Bibliografia
1. Abrams, D., et al. (2006). Monitoring the change: Current trends in outcome measure usage in physiotherapy. Manual Therapy, 11(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493018778713
2. Ader, D. N. (2007). Developing the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S1–S2. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55
3. Agarwal, A., et al. (2022). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to guide clinical care: Recommendations and challenges. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51625
4. Braun, T., et al. (2018). Current use of measurement instruments by physiotherapists working in Germany: a cross-sectional online survey. BMC Health Services Research, 18, 172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3563-2
5. Bundesversammlung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft. (2020). Bundesgesetz über die Forschung am Menschen (Humanforschungsgesetz, HFG).
6. Bundesversammlung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft. (2026). Bundesgesetz über die Krankenversicherung (KVG).
7. Caruso, J. C., & Cliff, N. (1997). Empirical Size, Coverage, and Power of Confidence Intervals for Spearman's Rho. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(4), 637–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164497057004009
8. Cella, D., et al. (2010). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011
9. Cella, D., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S3. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55
10. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
11. Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical Power Analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783
12. de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2011). Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996214
13. Deutsches Institut für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DIMDI). (2018). ICD-10-GM Version 2019, Systematisches Verzeichnis.
14. Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471445428
15. Gagnier, J. J., et al. (2021). COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 30(8), 2197–2218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02822-4
16. Garratt, A., et al. (2002). Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ, 324(7351), 1417. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1417
17. Griefahn, A., Wolf, E., & Zalpour, C. (2020). Wie kann die Dokumentation in der Physiotherapie durch die Digitalisierung effektiver und effizienter werden? - Eine Delphi-Studie. Physioscience, 16, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1113-6688
18. Hays, R. D., et al. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18, 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9
19. IBM Corp. (2020). SPSS Statistics for Windows. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
20. Kirrstetter, A., et al. (2017). Erfahrungen bei der Messung der Ergebnisqualität in der interventionellen Schmerztherapie. Der Schmerz, 31(2), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00482-016-0173-y
21. Leiner, G., Pallauf, M., Müller, G., & Seeberger, B. (2021). Anwendung von Assessments in der Physiotherapie – eine empirische Studie in Österreich. Physioscience, 17(04), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1162-7372
22. Lützner, C., Lange, T., & Lützner, J. (2017). Grundlagen patientenberichteter Ergebnisse (Patient-reported Outcome – PRO). Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie up2date, 12(06), 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-110864
23. Pielok, M., & Theiler, R. (2017). Quality Assurance Study on (Physio) therapy According to the Spiraldynamik® Concept for Treating Patients with Knee Complaints. Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, 2(129), 2. https://doi.org/10.4172/2573-0312.1000129
24. Ren, L., et al. (2018). Monitoring the Time Course of Disability through a Self-Assessment Instrument “Activity Index” (IA) in RA Patients. Journal of Rheumatic Diseases and Treatment, 4, 065. https://doi.org/10.23937/2469-5726/1510065
25. Ren, S., et al. (2018). Three dimensional knee kinematics and kinetics in ACL-deficient patients with and without medial meniscus posterior horn tear during level walking. Gait & Posture, 66, 26-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.08.007
26. Revicki, D. A., et al. (2009). Predicting EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items and domain item banks in a United States sample. Quality of Life Research, 18(6), 783–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9489-8
27. Roth, P., Gengenbacher, M., & Theiler, R. (2012). Activity-Index, ein internetbasierender Patientenfragbogen zur Verlaufsdokumentation von Rückenschmerzen (Low Back Pain). Physikalische Medizin, Rehabilitationsmedizin, Kurortmedizin, 22(03), 138–141. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1306319
28. Schädler, S. (2006). Subjektive Ziele objektiv messen. Physiopraxis, 4(09), 34–35. https:/doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1308024
29. Schenk, E., Taeymans, J., & Theiler, R. (2024). Suitability of the “QUALITOUCH Activity Index” as a quality control tool to monitor physio- and exercise therapy. Rehabilitation and Recreation, 18(4), 39–49. https:/doi.org/10.32782/2522-1795.2024.18.4.4
30. Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Werner, C. (2008). Methoden der Reliabilitätsbestimmung. In H. Moosbrugger & A. Kelava (Eds.), Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (pp. 113–133). Springer. https:/doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71635-8_6
31. Schuntermann, M. (2001). Internationale Klassifikation der Funktionsfähigkeit, Behinderung und Gesundheit (ICF). Physikalische Medizin, Rehabilitationsmedizin, Kurortmedizin, 11(06), 229–230. https:/doi.org/10.1055/s-2001-19074
32. Sim, J., & Wright, C. C. (2005). The Kappa Statistic in Reliability Studies: Use, Interpretation, and Sample Size Requirements. Physical Therapy, 85(3), 257–268. https:/doi.org/10.1093/ptj/85.3.257
33. Spearman, C. (1904). The Proof and Measurement of Association between Two Things. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 72–101. https:/doi.org/10.2307/1412159
34. Theiler, R. (2015). Outcome-Messung in der Praxis. Der Activity Index monitorisiert Schmerz und Einschränkung im Alltag. Med&move, 01/2016.
35. Walton, D. M. (2015). Making (common) sense of outcome measures. Manual Therapy, 20(6), 723–726. https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2015.11.001
36. Weinhold, W. (2008). Qualitätssicherung in der Physiotherapie: Evaluation von Performance-Tests.
37. Weldring, T., & Smith, S. M. (2013). Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Health Services Insights, 6, 61–68. https:/doi.org/10.4137/hsi.S11093
38. Zaugg, M., Baur, H., & Schmitt, K.-U. (2022). Applying patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in physiotherapy: an evaluation based on the QUALITOUCH Activity Index. Archives of Physiotherapy, 12(1), 1–9. https:/doi.org/10.1186/s40945-022-00152-3
