Joint flexibility problems and the impact of its operationalisation

A.M. Oosterwijk, L.M. Disseldorp, C.P. van der Schans, L.J. Mouton, M.K. Nieuwenhuis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dissatisfaction is being voiced with the generally used way joint flexibility problems are defined (operationalised), i.e. as a range of motion (ROM) one or more degrees lower than normative ROM of healthy subjects. Other, specifically more function-related operationalisations have been proposed. The current study evaluated the effect of applying different operationalisations of joint flexibility problems on its prevalence.

METHOD: ROM data of 95 joints affected by burns of 23 children were used, and data on 18 functional activities (Burn Outcome Questionnaire (BOQ)). Five methods were used to operationalise joint flexibility problems: (1) ROM below normative ROM, (2) ROM below normative ROM minus 1SD, (3) ROM below normative ROM minus 2SD, (4) ROM below functional ROM, and (5) a score of 2 or more on the Likert Scale (BOQ).

RESULTS: Prevalence of joint flexibility problems on a group level ranged from 13 to 100% depending on the operationalisation used. Per joint and movement direction, prevalence ranged from 40% to 100% (Method 1) and 0% to 80% (Methods 2-4). 18% of the children received '2' on the Likert Scale (Method 5).

CONCLUSION: The operationalisation of joint flexibility problems substantially influences prevalence, both on group and joint level. Changing to a function-related operationalisation seems valuable; however, international consensus is required regarding its adoption.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in the National Academic Research and Collaborations Information System of the Netherlands (OND1348800).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1819-1826
JournalBurns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries
Volume45
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2019

Fingerprint

Articular Range of Motion
Joints
Burns
Information Systems
Netherlands
Healthy Volunteers

Keywords

  • joints
  • flexibility

Cite this

@article{c25842c858d6475ea44f488be88fe04d,
title = "Joint flexibility problems and the impact of its operationalisation",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Dissatisfaction is being voiced with the generally used way joint flexibility problems are defined (operationalised), i.e. as a range of motion (ROM) one or more degrees lower than normative ROM of healthy subjects. Other, specifically more function-related operationalisations have been proposed. The current study evaluated the effect of applying different operationalisations of joint flexibility problems on its prevalence.METHOD: ROM data of 95 joints affected by burns of 23 children were used, and data on 18 functional activities (Burn Outcome Questionnaire (BOQ)). Five methods were used to operationalise joint flexibility problems: (1) ROM below normative ROM, (2) ROM below normative ROM minus 1SD, (3) ROM below normative ROM minus 2SD, (4) ROM below functional ROM, and (5) a score of 2 or more on the Likert Scale (BOQ).RESULTS: Prevalence of joint flexibility problems on a group level ranged from 13 to 100{\%} depending on the operationalisation used. Per joint and movement direction, prevalence ranged from 40{\%} to 100{\%} (Method 1) and 0{\%} to 80{\%} (Methods 2-4). 18{\%} of the children received '2' on the Likert Scale (Method 5).CONCLUSION: The operationalisation of joint flexibility problems substantially influences prevalence, both on group and joint level. Changing to a function-related operationalisation seems valuable; however, international consensus is required regarding its adoption.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in the National Academic Research and Collaborations Information System of the Netherlands (OND1348800).",
keywords = "joints, flexibility, gewrichten",
author = "A.M. Oosterwijk and L.M. Disseldorp and {van der Schans}, C.P. and L.J. Mouton and M.K. Nieuwenhuis",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2019 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.burns.2019.03.010",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "1819--1826",
journal = "Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries",
issn = "0305-4179",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "8",

}

Joint flexibility problems and the impact of its operationalisation. / Oosterwijk, A.M.; Disseldorp, L.M.; van der Schans, C.P.; Mouton, L.J.; Nieuwenhuis, M.K.

In: Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries, Vol. 45, No. 8, 01.12.2019, p. 1819-1826.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Joint flexibility problems and the impact of its operationalisation

AU - Oosterwijk, A.M.

AU - Disseldorp, L.M.

AU - van der Schans, C.P.

AU - Mouton, L.J.

AU - Nieuwenhuis, M.K.

N1 - Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

PY - 2019/12/1

Y1 - 2019/12/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Dissatisfaction is being voiced with the generally used way joint flexibility problems are defined (operationalised), i.e. as a range of motion (ROM) one or more degrees lower than normative ROM of healthy subjects. Other, specifically more function-related operationalisations have been proposed. The current study evaluated the effect of applying different operationalisations of joint flexibility problems on its prevalence.METHOD: ROM data of 95 joints affected by burns of 23 children were used, and data on 18 functional activities (Burn Outcome Questionnaire (BOQ)). Five methods were used to operationalise joint flexibility problems: (1) ROM below normative ROM, (2) ROM below normative ROM minus 1SD, (3) ROM below normative ROM minus 2SD, (4) ROM below functional ROM, and (5) a score of 2 or more on the Likert Scale (BOQ).RESULTS: Prevalence of joint flexibility problems on a group level ranged from 13 to 100% depending on the operationalisation used. Per joint and movement direction, prevalence ranged from 40% to 100% (Method 1) and 0% to 80% (Methods 2-4). 18% of the children received '2' on the Likert Scale (Method 5).CONCLUSION: The operationalisation of joint flexibility problems substantially influences prevalence, both on group and joint level. Changing to a function-related operationalisation seems valuable; however, international consensus is required regarding its adoption.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in the National Academic Research and Collaborations Information System of the Netherlands (OND1348800).

AB - BACKGROUND: Dissatisfaction is being voiced with the generally used way joint flexibility problems are defined (operationalised), i.e. as a range of motion (ROM) one or more degrees lower than normative ROM of healthy subjects. Other, specifically more function-related operationalisations have been proposed. The current study evaluated the effect of applying different operationalisations of joint flexibility problems on its prevalence.METHOD: ROM data of 95 joints affected by burns of 23 children were used, and data on 18 functional activities (Burn Outcome Questionnaire (BOQ)). Five methods were used to operationalise joint flexibility problems: (1) ROM below normative ROM, (2) ROM below normative ROM minus 1SD, (3) ROM below normative ROM minus 2SD, (4) ROM below functional ROM, and (5) a score of 2 or more on the Likert Scale (BOQ).RESULTS: Prevalence of joint flexibility problems on a group level ranged from 13 to 100% depending on the operationalisation used. Per joint and movement direction, prevalence ranged from 40% to 100% (Method 1) and 0% to 80% (Methods 2-4). 18% of the children received '2' on the Likert Scale (Method 5).CONCLUSION: The operationalisation of joint flexibility problems substantially influences prevalence, both on group and joint level. Changing to a function-related operationalisation seems valuable; however, international consensus is required regarding its adoption.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in the National Academic Research and Collaborations Information System of the Netherlands (OND1348800).

KW - joints

KW - flexibility

KW - gewrichten

U2 - 10.1016/j.burns.2019.03.010

DO - 10.1016/j.burns.2019.03.010

M3 - Article

C2 - 31679794

VL - 45

SP - 1819

EP - 1826

JO - Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries

JF - Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries

SN - 0305-4179

IS - 8

ER -