Minimal important change in physical function in trauma patients: a study using the short musculoskeletal function assessment.

PURPOSE: The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) questionnaire can be used to evaluate physical functioning in patients with traumatic injuries. It is not known what change in score reflects a meaningful change to patients. The aim was to determine minimal important change (MIC) values of the subscales (0-100) of the Dutch SMFA-NL in a sample of patients with a broad range of injuries. METHODS: Patients between 18 and 65 years of age completed the SMFA-NL and the Global Rating of Effect (GRE) questions at 6-week and 12-month post-injury. Anchor-based MIC values were calculated using univariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 225 patients were included (response rate 67%). The MIC value of the Upper Extremity Dysfunction (UED) subscale was 8 points, with a misclassification rate of 43%. The Lower Extremity Dysfunction subscale MIC value was 14 points, with a misclassification rate of 29%. The MIC value of the Problems with Daily Activities subscale was 25 points, with a misclassification rate of 33%. The MIC value of the Mental and Emotional Problems (MEP) subscale was 7 points, with a misclassification rate 37%. CONCLUSION: MIC values of the SMFA-NL were determined. The MIC values aid interpreting whether a change in physical functioning can be considered clinically important. Due to the considerable rates of misclassification, the MIC values of the UED and MEP subscales should be used with caution.

Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment: normative data of the Dutch population.

BACKGROUND: The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) is widely used in both research and clinical practice. Despite its frequent use, normative data of the SMFA have remained limited. Aim of this study was to gather normative data for the Dutch SMFA (SMFA-NL). METHODS: The SMFA-NL consists of two indices (function index and bother index) and four subscales (upper extremity dysfunction, lower extremity dysfunction, mental and emotional problems, and problems with daily activities). A total of 900 patients were invited to fill in the SMFA-NL. Six age groups (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 65-75 years) were constructed. Analysis of variance, t tests, and regression analyses were used to assess age and gender effects. RESULTS: The response rate was 97 %. There was a significant difference between men and women in scores on all indices and subscales (range p < 0.001 to p = 0.002), except for the upper extremity dysfunction subscale (p = 0.06). A significant interaction effect was found between gender and age for the upper extremity dysfunction subscale; a larger decrease in score with increasing age was observed for women, compared with men. Significant differences were found between age groups for the bother index (p < 0.001), lower extremity dysfunction subscale (p = 0.001), and the problems with daily activities subscale (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Significant differences in SMFA-NL scores were found between men and women and between different age groups. These SMFA-NL normative data provide an opportunity of benchmarking health status of participants with musculoskeletal disorders or injuries against their age- and gender-matched peers in the Dutch population.