Access to Physical Therapy in a Medically Underserved, Urban Community.

PURPOSE: Austin is Chicago's largest community and is 85% African American. The purpose of this study was to the examine facilitators and barriers to physical therapy (PT) access as described by Austin community residents and health care providers (HCPs). METHODS: Community residents (n=47) participated in focus groups. Seven HCPs from Austin were interviewed by telephone or in person. All focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a constant comparative method. RESULTS: Austin residents and HCPs reported that having insurance and having a positive view of PT were facilitators to PT access. Barriers included poor proximity to PT clinics, cost, and incomplete knowledge of PT. CONCLUSIONS: Three barriers were identified by community residents and HCPs, all are modifiable factors. Future research should focus on increasing awareness about the benefits of PT and developing low-cost PT options. The PT desert identified in this study highlights the needs of underserved communities.

Fit and Strong! Plus: design of a comparative effectiveness evaluation of a weight management program for older adults with osteoarthritis.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common chronic condition and principal cause of disability among older adults. The current obesity epidemic has contributed to this high prevalence rate. Fortunately both OA symptoms and obesity can be ameliorated through lifestyle modifications. Physical activity (PA) combined with weight management improves physical function among obese persons with knee OA but evidence-based interventions that combine PA and weight management are limited for this population. This paper describes a comparative effectiveness trial testing an evidence-based PA program for adults with lower extremity (LE) OA, Fit and Strong!, against an enhanced version that also addresses weight management based on the evidence-based Obesity Reduction Black Intervention Trial (ORBIT). Adult participants (n=400) with LE OA, age 60+, overweight/obese, and not meeting PA requirements of ≥ 150 min per week, are randomized to one of the two programs. Both 8-week interventions meet 3 times per week and include 60 min of strength, flexibility, and aerobic exercise instruction followed by 30 min of education/group discussion. The Fit and Strong! education sessions focus on using PA to manage OA; whereas Fit and Strong! Plus addresses PA and weight loss management strategies. Maintenance of behavior change is reinforced in both groups during months 3-24 through telephone calls and mailed newsletters. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, and 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Primary outcomes are dietary change at 2 months followed by weight loss at 6 months that is maintained at 24 months. Secondary outcomes assess PA, physical performance, and anxiety/depression.

Measuring disparities: bias in the Short Form-36v2 among Spanish-speaking medical patients.

BACKGROUND: Many national surveys have found substantial differences in self-reported overall health between Spanish-speaking Hispanics and other racial/ethnic groups. However, because cultural and language differences may create measurement bias, it is unclear whether observed differences in self-reported overall health reflect true differences in health. OBJECTIVES: This study uses a cross-sectional survey to investigate psychometric properties of the Short Form-36v2 for subjects across 4 racial/ethnic and language groups. Multigroup latent variable modeling was used to test increasingly stringent criteria for measurement equivalence. SUBJECTS: Our sample (N=1281) included 383 non-Hispanic whites, 368 non-Hispanic blacks, 206 Hispanics interviewed in English, and 324 Hispanics interviewed in Spanish recruited from outpatient medical clinics in 2 large urban areas. RESULTS: We found weak factorial invariance across the 4 groups. However, there was no evidence for strong factorial invariance. The overall fit of the model was substantially worse (change in Comparative Fit Index >0.02, root mean square error of approximation change >0.003) after requiring equal intercepts across all groups. Further comparisons established that the equality constraints on the intercepts for Spanish-speaking Hispanics were responsible for the decrement to model fit. CONCLUSIONS: Observed differences between SF-36v2 scores for Spanish-speaking Hispanics are systematically biased relative to the other 3 groups. The lack of strong invariance suggests the need for caution when comparing SF-36v2 mean scores of Spanish-speaking Hispanics with those of other groups. However, measurement equivalence testing for this study supports correlational or multivariate latent variable analyses of SF-36v2 responses across all the 4 subgroups, as these analyses require only weak factorial invariance.

Comparison of two methods of conducting the Fit and Strong! program.

OBJECTIVE: Fit and Strong! is an award winning, evidence-based, multiple-component physical activity/behavior change intervention. It is a group- and facility-based program that meets for 90 minutes 3 times per week for 8 weeks (24 sessions total). We originally tested Fit and Strong! using physical therapists (PTs) as instructors but have transitioned to using nationally certified exercise instructors (CEIs) as part of an effort to translate Fit and Strong! into community-based settings, and have tested the impact of this shift in instruction type on participant outcomes. METHODS: We used a 2-group design. The first 161 participants to sequentially enroll received instruction from PTs. The next 190 sequential enrollees received instruction from CEIs. All participants were assessed at baseline, at the conclusion of the 8-week Fit and Strong! program, and at the 6-month followup. RESULTS: We saw no significant differences by group on outcomes at 8 weeks or 6 months. Participants in both groups improved significantly with respect to lower-extremity strength, aerobic capacity, pain, stiffness, and physical function. Significant differences favoring the PT-led classes were seen on 2 of 5 mediators, self-efficacy for exercise and barriers adherence efficacy. Participant evaluations rated both types of instruction equally highly, attendance was identical, and no untoward health events were observed or reported under either instruction mode. CONCLUSION: Outcomes under the 2 types of instruction are remarkably stable. These findings justify the use of CEIs in the future to extend the reach of the Fit and Strong! program.

Patients with worse mental health report more physical limitations after adjustment for physical performance.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether mental health scores are associated with self-reported physical limitations after adjustment for physical performance. Patient-reported physical limitations are widely used to assess health status or the impact of disease. However, patients' mental health may influence their reports of their physical limitations. METHODS: Mental health and physical limitations were measured using the SF-36v2 mental health and physical functioning subscales in a cross-sectional study of 1024 participants. Physical performance was measured using tests of strength, endurance, dexterity, and flexibility. Multivariable linear regression was performed to examine the relationship between self-reported mental health and physical limitations adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, body mass index, and measured physical performance. RESULTS: The score distributions for mental health and physical functioning were similar to that of the United States population in this age range. In unadjusted analyses, every 10-point decline in mental health scores was associated with a 4.8-point decline in physical functioning scores (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = -4.2 to -5.3; p < .001). After adjusting for covariables including measured physical performance, every 10-point decline in mental health scores was associated with a 3.0-point decline in physical functioning scores (95% CI = -2.5 to -3.6; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: People with poor mental health scores seem to report more physical limitations than would be expected based on physical performance. When comparing self-reported physical limitations between groups, it is important to consider differences in mental health.