IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i22p15029-d973273.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Assessing Dual-Task Performance in Daily Life: A Review of Current Instruments, Use, and Measurement Properties

Author

Listed:
  • Zuhal Abasıyanık

    (REVAL Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hasselt University, Martelarenlaan 42, Agoralaan 1, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium
    Graduate School of Health Sciences, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir 35220, Turkey
    Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir 35620, Turkey
    Universitair MS Centrum, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium)

  • Renee Veldkamp

    (REVAL Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hasselt University, Martelarenlaan 42, Agoralaan 1, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium
    Universitair MS Centrum, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium)

  • Amber Fostier

    (REVAL Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hasselt University, Martelarenlaan 42, Agoralaan 1, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium)

  • Carolien Van Goubergen

    (REVAL Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hasselt University, Martelarenlaan 42, Agoralaan 1, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium)

  • Alon Kalron

    (Department of Physical Therapy, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Professions, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel)

  • Peter Feys

    (REVAL Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hasselt University, Martelarenlaan 42, Agoralaan 1, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium
    Universitair MS Centrum, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium)

Abstract

The patient perspective of dual-task (DT) impairment in real life is unclear. This review aimed (i) to identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on DT and evaluate their measurement properties and (ii) to investigate the usage of PROMs for the evaluation of DT difficulties. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and Web of Science from inception to March 2022. Methodological quality was evaluated using the COSMIN checklist. Six studies examined the measurement properties of DT PROMs. Nine studies used DT PROMs as the outcome measure. Five PROMs were identified, including the Divided Attention Questionnaire (DAQ), Dual-Task-Impact on Daily-life Activities Questionnaire (DIDA-Q), a Questionnaire by Cock et al. (QOC), Dual-Tasking Questionnaire (DTQ), and Dual-Task Screening-List (DTSL). Fourteen measurement properties were documented: five (35.7%) rated quality as “sufficient”, six (42.8%) “insufficient”, and three (21.4%) “indeterminate”. The quality of evidence for each measurement property ranged from very low to high. While DT performance is investigated in many populations, the use of PROMs is still limited, although five instruments are available. Currently, due to insufficient data, it is not possible to recommend a specific DT PROM in a specific population. An exception is DIDA-Q, which has the highest quality of measurement properties in people with multiple sclerosis.

Suggested Citation

  • Zuhal Abasıyanık & Renee Veldkamp & Amber Fostier & Carolien Van Goubergen & Alon Kalron & Peter Feys, 2022. "Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Assessing Dual-Task Performance in Daily Life: A Review of Current Instruments, Use, and Measurement Properties," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:22:p:15029-:d:973273
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/15029/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/15029/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:22:p:15029-:d:973273. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.