Health professionals' experiences with the PEDI-UG: What do Ugandan occupational therapists say about the utility and value of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI-UG) for children with disabilities?
child development
child disability
evaluation
paediatrics
rehabilitation
Journal
Child: care, health and development
ISSN: 1365-2214
Titre abrégé: Child Care Health Dev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7602632
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2023
05 2023
Historique:
revised:
06
10
2022
received:
03
11
2021
accepted:
08
10
2022
medline:
14
4
2023
pubmed:
18
10
2022
entrez:
17
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Uganda version of Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI-UG) was culturally adapted and validated from the PEDI-US, a tool used to evaluate the functional capability of children with or without disability aged 6 months to 7.5 years in the areas of self-care, mobility and social domains. A group of Ugandan occupational therapists with experience of using PEDI-UG participated in this study to explore the question: What do Ugandan occupational therapists say about the utility and value of the PEDI-UG for children with disabilities? A qualitative research design was chosen to explore the participants' viewpoints concerning the utility and value of the PEDI-UG for children with disabilities. Purposive sampling was used to recruit health professionals for the focus group discussions. Focus group discussions were carried out with 18 occupational therapists and nurses. Thematic analysis was performed to establish patterns and themes. Several challenges concerning the contextual use of PEDI-UG were reported. For example, PEDI-UG being culturally adapted in two languages (English and Luganda) makes it difficult for health professionals to use it for children whose caregivers are non-English or non-Luganda speakers. In addition, participants reported adapting the way they asked the assessment questions, struggling with how they interpreted the scores and observing the child's skills if required during PEDI-UG interviews with caregivers. The findings of this study suggest that health professionals are challenged with the use of the PEDI-UG assessment in diverse cultural contexts and/or languages. These challenges are important considerations for the PEDI-UG translation in different Uganda cultural languages and training health professionals on the use and value of PEDI-UG for children with disabilities.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The Uganda version of Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI-UG) was culturally adapted and validated from the PEDI-US, a tool used to evaluate the functional capability of children with or without disability aged 6 months to 7.5 years in the areas of self-care, mobility and social domains. A group of Ugandan occupational therapists with experience of using PEDI-UG participated in this study to explore the question: What do Ugandan occupational therapists say about the utility and value of the PEDI-UG for children with disabilities?
METHODS
A qualitative research design was chosen to explore the participants' viewpoints concerning the utility and value of the PEDI-UG for children with disabilities. Purposive sampling was used to recruit health professionals for the focus group discussions. Focus group discussions were carried out with 18 occupational therapists and nurses. Thematic analysis was performed to establish patterns and themes.
RESULTS
Several challenges concerning the contextual use of PEDI-UG were reported. For example, PEDI-UG being culturally adapted in two languages (English and Luganda) makes it difficult for health professionals to use it for children whose caregivers are non-English or non-Luganda speakers. In addition, participants reported adapting the way they asked the assessment questions, struggling with how they interpreted the scores and observing the child's skills if required during PEDI-UG interviews with caregivers.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this study suggest that health professionals are challenged with the use of the PEDI-UG assessment in diverse cultural contexts and/or languages. These challenges are important considerations for the PEDI-UG translation in different Uganda cultural languages and training health professionals on the use and value of PEDI-UG for children with disabilities.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
555-562Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Child: Care, Health and Development published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Abubakar, A., Holding, P., van Baar, A., Newton, C. R., & van de Vijver, F. J. (2008). Monitoring psychomotor development in a resource-limited setting: An evaluation of the Kilifi Developmental Inventory. Annals of Tropical Pediatrics, 28, 217-226. https://doi.org/10.1179/146532808X335679
Amer, A., Kakooza-Mwesige, A., Jarl, G., Tumwine, J. K., Forssberg, H., Eliasson, A. C., & Hermansson, L. (2018). The Ugandan version of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI-UG). Part II: Psychometric properties. Child: Care, Health and Development, 44(4), 562-571. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12562
Andrews, C., Kakooza-Mwesige, A., Almeida, R., Swartling Peterson, S., Wabwire-Mangen, F., Eliasson, A. C., & Forssberg, H. (2020). Impairments, functional limitations, and access to services and education for children with cerebral palsy in Uganda: A population-based study. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 62(4), 454-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.14401
Andrews, C., Namaganda, L., Eliasson, A. C., Kakooza-Mwesige, A., & Forssberg, H. (2022). Functional development in children with cerebral palsy in Uganda: Population-based longitudinal cohort study. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 64(1), 70-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.14996
Arthur, S., & Nazroo, J. (2004). Designing fieldwork strategies and materials. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice. A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 109-137). Sage Publications.
Berg, M., Aamodt, G., Stanghelle, J., Krumlinde-Sundholm, L., & Hussain, A. (2008). Cross-cultural validation of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) norms in a randomized Norwegian population. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 5(3), 143-152.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2007). Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1316-1328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307306927
Charmaz, K. (2006). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. In Qualitative inquiry (Vol. 23, pp. 1-12). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416657105
Copeland, J. M., Taylor, W. J., & Dean, S. G. (2008). Factors influencing the use of outcome measures for patients with low back pain: A survey of New Zealand physical therapists. Physical Therapy, 88(12), 1492-1505. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080083
Dillard, P. A., Andonian, L., Flores, O., Lai, L., MacRae, A., & Shakir, M. (1992). Culturally competent occupational therapy in a diversity populated mental health setting. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46(8), 721-726. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.46.8.721
Duncan, E. A., & Murray, J. (2012). The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 12(1), 96. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-96
Eakin, P. (1989). Assessments of activities of daily living: A critical review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52, 11-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802268905200104
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., & Pölkki, T. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1), 215824401452263. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633
Fawcett, A. (2007). Chapter 3 Purposes of assessment and measurement. In Principles of assessment and outcome measurement for occupational therapists and physiotherapists. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Fisher, A. G. (2009). Occupational therapy intervention process model: A model for planning and implementing top-down, client-centered, and occupation-based interventions. Three Star Press.
Fricke, J., & Unsworth, C. (1992). The status of activities of daily living: A Victorian perspective. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 39, 29-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.1992.tb01754.x
Gannotti, M. E., & Handwerker, W. P. (2002). Puerto Rican understandings of child disability: Methods for the cultural validation of standardized measures of child health. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 55(12), 2093-2105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00354-9
Garland, A., Kruse, M., & Aarons, G. A. (2003). Clinicians and outcome measurement: What's the use? Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 30(4), 393-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287427
Gladstone, M., Lancaster, G. A., Umar, E., Nyirenda, M., Kayira, E., van den Broek, N. R., & Smyth, R. L. (2010). The Malawi Developmental Assessment Tool (MDAT): The creation, validation, and reliability of a tool to assess child development in rural African settings. PLoS Medicine, 7, e1000273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000273
Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17-28). SAGE Publications.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-216). SAGE Publications.
Haley, S. M., Coster, W. J., Ludlow, L. H., Haltiwanger, J., & Andrellos, P. (1992). Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory: Development, standardization, and administration manual (version 1.0). PEDI Research Group, New England Medical Center Hospitals.
Kakooza-Mwesige, A., Tumwine, J. K., Forssberg, H., & Eliasson, A. C. (2018). The Uganda version of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI). Part I: Cross-cultural adaptation. Child: Care, Health and Development, 44, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12563
Kinebanian, A., & Stomph, M. (2009). Guiding principles on diversity and culture. WFOT. https://www.wfot.org
Law, M. (2003). Outcome measurement in pediatric rehabilitation. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 23(2), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/J006v23n02_01
Leonardelli Haertlein, C. A. (1992). Ethics in evaluation in occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 950-953. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.46.10.950
O'Connor, B., Kerr, C., Shields, N., & Imms, C. (2016). A systematic review of evidence based assessment practices by allied health practitioners for children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 58(4), 332-347. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12973
Oien, I., Falling, B., & Ostensjo, S. (2009). Goal-setting in pediatric rehabilitation: Perceptions of parents and professionals. Child: Care, Health and Development, 36(4), 558-565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.01038.x
Saloojee, G., Ekwan, F., Andrews, C., Damiano, D. L., Kakooza-Mwesige, A., & Forssberg, H. (2021). Akwenda intervention programme for children and youth with cerebral palsy in a low-resource setting in sub-Saharan Africa: Protocol for a quasi-randomised controlled study. BMJ Open, 11, e047634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047634
Smith, R. O. (1992). The science of occupational therapy assessment. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 12, 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/153944929201200101
Swinkels, R. A., van Peppen, R. P., Wittink, H., Custers, J. W., & Beurskens, A. J. (2011). Current use and barriers and facilitators for implementation of standardised measures in physical therapy in the Netherlands. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 12(1), 106. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-106
UNCF & University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. (2008). Monitoring child disability in developing countries: Results from the multiple indicator cluster surveys. United Nations Children's Fund.
Upton, D., Stephens, D., Williams, B., & Scurlock-Evans, L. (2014). Occupational therapists' attitudes, knowledge, and implementation of evidence-based practice: A systematic review of published research. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 77(1), 24-38. https://doi.org/10.4276/030802214X13887685335544
Vargus-Adams, J. N., Martin, L. K., Maignan, S. H., Klein, A. C., & Salisbury, S. (2011). The GMFM, PEDI, and CP-QOL and perspectives on functioning from children with CP, parents, and medical professionals. Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine: An Interdisciplinary Approach, 4, 3-12. https://doi.org/10.3233/PRM-2011-0148