Harald S Miedema^1,2*, Elin Koppelaar¹, Yvonne F Heerkens³, Anita Feleus¹, Alex Burdorf⁴ and Bart W Koes²

¹Research Center Innovations in Care, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
²Department of General Practice, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
³Research Centre Rehabilitation, Work and Sports, Arnhem-Nijmegen University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
⁴Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

*Corresponding Author: Harald S Miedema, Research Center Innovations in Care, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Received: June 27, 2022; Published: July 26, 2022

Abstract

Background: Non-traumatic complaints of arm, neck and shoulder (CANS) are an important health issue. Although CANS may vary in clinical expression and underlying causes, data on sick leave and healthcare use show that, especially chronic CANS, has a major impact on functioning and health. There is a need for more insight into the physical, emotional and social challenges of patients with CANS.

Aim: To present an overview of relevant outcomes regarding functions, activities and participation, in patients with complaints of arm, neck and shoulder (CANS) and their association with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).

Design Linkage study, linking items of outcome measures to ICF-categories.

Methods: A literature search was made for articles on prognostic and intervention studies, as part of the development of the Dutch multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline for non-specific CANS. Outcome measures of each article were extracted and categorized into those on physical health and mental health. All items of these measures were linked separately to the ICF following internationally developed linking rules. All ICF categories used in at least 5% of the studies are listed, following new recommendations for the development of ICF core sets. Additionally, the distribution of ICF categories across all ICF categories within the outcome measures is evaluated.

Results: A total of 123 original studies were included. The ‘top 20’ of ICF categories related to physical health and mental health are listed, together with the cumulative percentage of all the applied ICF categories. Also reported are all ICF categories used in at least 5% of the studies, as well as the frequency of the total number of applied ICF categories.

Conclusions: Aspects of function, activities and participation were identified in outcome measures used in studies on CANS and linked to the ICF, based on the literature included in the multidisciplinary guideline for non-specific CANS.

Clinical Rehabilitation Impact: The results of this study can serve as a preparatory study for the development of an ICF core set for CANS, which can be applied in rehabilitation care for patients with (chronic) CANS.

Keywords: International Classification of Functioning (ICF); Disability and Health; Neck complaints; Shoulder Complaints; Upper Extremity Complaints; Complaints of Arm, Neck and Shoulder (CANS); Outcome Measurement

References

1. Morse TF., et al. “The economic and social consequences of work-related musculoskeletal disorders: the Connecticut Upper-Extremity Surveillance Project (CUSP)”. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 4 (1998): 209-216.
2. Huisstede BMA., et al. “Prevalence and characteristics of complaints of the arm, neck, and/or shoulder (CANS) in the open population”. The Clinical Journal of Pain 3 (2008): 253-259.
3. Walker-Bone K., et al. “Prevalence and impact of musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb in the general population”. Arthritis and Rheumatology 4 (2004): 642-651.
4. Urwin M., et al. “Estimating the burden of musculoskeletal disorders in the community: the comparative prevalence of symptoms at different anatomical sites, and the relation to social deprivation”. Annals of Rheumatic Diseases 11 (1998): 649-655.
5. Roquelaure Y., et al. “Epidemiologic surveillance of upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders in the working population”. Arthritis and Rheumatology 5 (2006): 765-778.
6. “RSI. The Hague: Gezondheidsraad” (2000).
7. Van Tulder M., et al. “Repetitive strain injury”. Lancet 9575 (2007): 1815-1822.
8. Huisstede BMA., et al. “Multidisciplinary consensus on the terminology and classification of complaints of the arm, neck and/or shoulder”. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 5 (2007): 313-319.
9. Feleus A., et al. “Management in non-traumatic arm, neck and shoulder complaints: differences between diagnostic groups”. European Spine Journal 9 (2008): 1218-1229.
10. Klein Hesselink J., et al. “Ziekteverzuim in Nederland in 2009”. Hoofddorp: TNO (2011).
11. Feuerstein M., et al. “Occupational upper extremity disorders in the federal workforce. Prevalence, health care expenditures, and patterns of work disability”. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 6 (1998): 546-555.
12. Hashemi L., et al. “Length of disability and cost of work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremity”. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 3 (1988): 261-269.
13. Silverstein B., et al. “Work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, back and upper extremity in Washington State 1990-1998”. Washington DC: Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (2000).
14. Baldwin ML and Butler RJ. “Upper extremity disorders in the workplace: costs and outcomes beyond the first return to work”. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 3 (2006): 303-323.
15. Miedema HS and Feleus A. “Guideline ‘Non-specific symptoms of arm, neck and/or shoulders”. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd21 (2013): A6249.
16. Multidisciplinaire richtlijn aspecifieke Klachten Arm, Nek en/of Schouders. Utrecht: Kwaliteitskoepel Medisch Specialisten (2012).
17. Huber M., et al. “How should we define health?” BMJ 343 (2011): d4163.
18. Burgers JS and van Everdingen JJE. “Evidence-based guideline development in the Netherlands: the EBRO platform”. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde 42 (2004): 2057-2059.
19. Donabedian A. “The quality of care. How can it be assessed?” JAMA12 (1988): 1743-1748.
20. Valderas JM and Alonso J. “Patient reported outcome measures: a model-based classification system for research and clinical practice”. Quality of Life Research 9 (2008): 1125-1135.
21. Meadows KA. “A measured decision. International Clinical Trials”. London: Samedan Ltd. Pharmaceutical Publishing (2011).
22. McKenna SP. “Measuring patient-reported outcomes: moving beyond misplaced common sense to hard science”. BMC Medicine 9 (2011): 86.
23. Meadows KA. “Patient-reported outcome measures: an overview”. British Journal of Community Nursing 3 (2011): 146-151.
24. Cieza A., et al. “ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned”. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 4 (2005): 212-218.
25. Beaton DE., et al. “Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity”. The Official Journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists 2 (2001): 128-146.
26. World Health Organization. “International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)”. Geneva: World Health Organization (2001).
27. Kus S., et al. “What is our knowledge of functioning and disability in hand conditions based on?” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 8 (2011): 1326-1332.
28. Brockow T., et al. “Identifying the concepts contained in outcome measures of clinical trials on musculoskeletal disorders and chronic widespread pain using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a reference”. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 44 (2004): 30-36.
29. Selb M., et al. “A guide on how to develop an international classification of functioning, disability and health core set”. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 1 (2015): 105-117.
30. Cieza A., et al. “Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health”. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 5 (2002): 205-210.
31. Cieza A and Stucki G. “New approaches to understanding the impact of musculoskeletal conditions”. Best Practice and Research: Clinical Rheumatology 2 (2004): 141-154.
32. Stucki G., et al. “Value and application of the ICF in rehabilitation medicine”. Disability and Rehabilitation 17 (2002): 932-938.
33. Stucki G and Grimby G. “Applying the ICF in medicine”. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 44 (2004): 5-6.
34. Rudolf K-D., et al. “Development of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health core sets for hand conditions--results of the World Health Organization International Consensus process”. Disability and Rehabilitation 8 (2012): 681-693.

Citation

Citation: Harald S Miedema., et al. “Overview of ICF Categories Addressed within Outcome Measures Applied in Prognostic and Intervention Studies for Non-Specific Complaints of Arm, Neck and Shoulder". Acta Scientific Orthopaedics 5.8 (2022): 106-121.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Harald S Miedema., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.