liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Functional capacity after hip arthroplasty: A comparison between evaluation with three standard instruments and a personal interview
Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine . Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Orthopaedic Centre, Department of Orthopaedics Linköping.
Öberg, U., Department of Physiotherapy, County Hospital, Eksjö, Sweden.
Svidén, G., Department of Rehabilition, Jönköping University, PO Box 1026, SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden.
Department of Occupational Therapy, County Hospital, Eksjö, Sweden.
2005 (English)In: Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, ISSN 1103-8128, Vol. 12, no 1, 18-28 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The aim of the present study was to compare the information obtained from three standard instruments used in physiotherapy and occupational therapy and with information acquired from an unstructured interview. Ten patients with osteoarthritis of the hip were consecutively picked from the waiting list at an orthopedic clinic. All were examined before and six months after arthroplasty. The study layout is a mixture of quantitative and qualitative evaluation. The three instruments used were SF-36 (self-reported health-related quality of life), FAS (an instrument for evaluation of lower extremity dysfunction), and the COPM (for evaluation of self-experienced activity level). All patients were also interviewed in a free, unstructured interview, and data were analyzed with a phenomenological approach. All methods could describe function and activity status of the patients very well, and they were also responsive to postoperative improvement. Together the three instruments gave such good information that almost no extra information was obtained through the interviews. On the other hand, the interviews served as powerful validation of the three instruments. The information in the three separate instruments is qualitatively different, and one instrument cannot replace another. They cannot be replaced by the interview either, because the instruments provide the therapist with specific and structured information that is important for further treatment planning and follow-up. © 2005 Taylor & Francis.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2005. Vol. 12, no 1, 18-28 p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-45470DOI: 10.1080/11038120510027153OAI: diva2:266366
Available from: 2009-10-11 Created: 2009-10-11 Last updated: 2011-01-12

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Öberg, Tommy
By organisation
Faculty of Health SciencesOrthopaedics and Sports Medicine Department of Orthopaedics Linköping
In the same journal
Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 26 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link