Determination of the minimal clinically important difference on the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures for Occupational Therapy (AusTOMs – OT)

References

• Donnabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. 1996. Milbank Q 2005;83:691–729
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks P. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53–72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36 item short-form health survey (SF36): conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwan J, et al. The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med 1981;15A:221–9
   Google Scholar
• Unsworth C, Duckett S, Duncombe D, et al. Validity of the AusTOM scales: a comparison of the AusTOMs and EuroQol-5D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004;2:1–12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Enderby P, John A, Petherham B. Therapy outcome measures manual: physiotherapy, occupational therapy, rehabilitation nursing. San Diego: Singular; 1998
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: Author; 2001
   Google Scholar
• Unsworth CA, Duncombe D. AusTOMs for occupational therapy. Melbourne: La Trobe University; 2004
   Google Scholar
• Unsworth CA, Duncombe D. AusTOMs for occupational therapy. 3rd ed. Melbourne: La Trobe University; 2014
   Google Scholar
• Morris ME, Dodd KJ, Taylor NF. AusTOMs for physiotherapy. Melbourne: La Trobe University; 2004
   Google Scholar
• Morris ME, Dodd KJ, Taylor NF. AusTOMs for physiotherapy. 2nd ed. Melbourne: La Trobe University; 2014
   Google Scholar
• Perry A, Skeat J. AusTOMs for speech pathology. Melbourne: La Trobe University; 2004
   Google Scholar
• Perry A, Skeat J. AusTOMs for speech pathology. 2nd ed. Melbourne: La Trobe University; 2014
   Google Scholar
• Unsworth CA. Measuring outcomes using the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures for Occupational Therapy (AusTOMs – OT): data description and tool sensitivity. Br J Occup Ther 2005;68:354–36
   Google Scholar
• Unsworth CA. Using the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures for Occupational Therapy (AusTOMs-OT) to measure outcomes for clients following stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 2008;15:351–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung W, Clayton N, Tan J, et al. The effect of endotracheal tube size on voice and swallowing function in patients with thermal burn injury: an evaluation using the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures (AusTOMS). Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2013;15:216–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris M, Perry A, Unsworth C, et al. Reliability of the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures for quantifying disability and health. Int J Ther Rehabil 2005;12:340–6
   Google Scholar
• Scott F, Unsworth CA, Fricke J, Taylor N. Reliability of the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures for Occupational Therapy (AusTOMs – OT) Self-care scale. Aust Occup Ther J 2006;53:265–76
   Google Scholar
• Fristedt S, Elgmark E, Unsworth CA. Reliability of the Swedish translation of the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures for occupational therapy. Scand J Occup Ther 2013;20:182–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unsworth CA, Duncombe D. AusTOMs for occupational therapy. Swedish Translation undertaken by Fristedt S, Jonsson L, Londos Y, Timen E. Stockholm: Swedish Occupational Therapy Association; 2011
   Google Scholar
• Unsworth CA, Duncombe D. AusTOMs for occupational therapy. Arabic Translation undertaken by Awad Y. Melbourne: La Trobe University; 2014
   Google Scholar
• Skeat J, Perry A, Morris M, et al. The use of the ICF framework in an allied health outcome measure: Australian Therapy Outcome Measures (AusTOMs). In Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, ICF Australian user guide. Version 1.0. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2003:77–81
   Google Scholar
• Johnston B, Thorlund K, Schunemann H, et al. Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta-analyses: the application of minimal important difference units. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:116–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abu-Awad Y, Unsworth CA, Coulson M, Sarigiannis M. Using the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures for Occupational Therapy (AusTOMs-OT) to measure client participation outcomes. Br J Occup Therapy 2014;77:44–9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unsworth CA, Bearup A, Rickard K. A benchmark comparison of outcomes for clients with upper limb dysfunction following stroke using the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures for Occupational Therapy (AusTOMs-OT). Am J Occup Ther 2009;63:732–43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unsworth CA, Duncombe D. A comparison of client outcomes from two acute care neurological services using self care data from the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures for Occupational Therapy (AusTOMs – OT). Br J Occup Ther 2005;68:477–82
   Google Scholar
• Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:171–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimally clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407–15
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003;41:582–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 2001;28:406–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, et al. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77:371–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007;7:541–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleland JA, Childs JD, Whitman JM. Psychometric properties of the Neck Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with mechanical neck pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:69–74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG, Chou R. What does/should the minimum clinically important difference measure? A reconsideration of its clinical value in evaluating efficacy of lumbar fusion surgery. Clin J Pain 2012;28:387–97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shikiar R, Willian M, Okun M, et al. The validity and responsiveness of three quality of life measures in the assessment of psoriasis patients: results of a phase II study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:71–82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard R, Phillips P, Johnson T, et al. Determining the minimum clinically important differences for outcomes in the DOMINO trial. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2011;26:812–17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon KB, Langley RG, Leonardi C, et al. Clinical response to asalimumab treatment in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: double blind, randomized controlled trial and open-label extension study. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006;55:589–606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Davis AM, Hudak P, McConnell S. The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) outcome measure: what do we know about it now? Hand Ther 2001;6:109–18
   Google Scholar
• de Morton NA, Brusco NK, Wood L, et al. The de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) provides a valid method for measuring and monitoring the mobility of patients making the transition from hospital to the community: an observational study. J Physiother 2011;57:109–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar