Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 51-11 | Page 63

Letters to the Editor Accepted Oct 16, 2019; Epub ahead of print Oct 23, 2019 Carmen E. Capo-Lugo, PT, PhD 1,2 , Erik H. Hoyer, MD 2,3 and Daniel Young, PT, DPT, PhD 2,4 1 From the Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 877 Birmingham, AL, 2 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 3 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, 4 Department of Physical Therapy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV. E-mail: [email protected] RESPONSE TO LETTER TO THE EDITOR: RESPONSE TO LETTER TO THE EDITOR FROM CAPO-LUGO ET AL. We thank Carmen Capo-Lugo, Erik H. Hoyer and Da- niel Young for their support for our literature scan for a screening test battery for hospital-acquired deconditio- ning (HAD). We note that Hoyer et al. (5) recently pu- blished on the value of the AM-PAC, and this perhaps explains their specific interest in this instrument. We explained on p. 399 of our paper that we deliberately chose only the first paper published on the psycho- metric properties of each identified instrument. This was in the hope that the first report of psychometric testing for a new instrument would be comprehensive. We took this approach to limit the publication volume bias that would have been introduced had we included every paper published since instrument inception on its psychometric properties (24). For the TUGT, for instance, this would have involved 30 years of testing (including translation and testing of the TUGT into over 20 languages), whilst for newer instruments, such as the DEMMI, this would have involved fewer than 5 papers simply because of the recency of the research. We look forward to correspondence with other resear- chers interested in the other instruments we included in our screening battery, because the argument posed by this author team for the AM-PAC will apply to all other instruments. We are pleased that Capo-Lugo and co-authors. have joined their voices with ours for an efficient and effective screening approach for HAD, as unless this is detected early and addressed, the progression to disability and frailty is often inevitable. Susan Gordon, PhD 1 , Karen A. Grimmer, PhD 1,2 and Sarah Barras, PhD 3 From the 1 College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, AdelaideSouth Australia, Australia, 2 Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, StellenboschSouth Africa and 3 Australian Health Services Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] REFERENCES (for both papers) 1. Gordon S, Grimmer KA, Barras S. Assessment for inci- pient hospital-acquired deconditioning in acute hospital settings: a systematic literature review. J Rehabil Med 2019; 51: 397–404. 2. Brown CJ, Foley KT, Lowman JD Jr, MacLennan PA, Raz- jouyan J, Najafi B. et al. Comparison of posthospitaliza- tion function and community mobility in hospital mobility program and usual care patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2016; 176: 921–927. 3. Grimmer-Somers K, Vipond N, Kumar S, Hall G. A review and critique of assessment instruments for patients with persistent pain. J Pain Res 2009; 2: 21–47. 4. Jette DU, Stilphen M, Ranganathan VK, Passek S, Frost FS, Jette AM. Interrater reliability of AM-PAC “6-clicks” basic mobility and daily activity short forms. Phys Ther 2015; 95: 758–766. 5. Hoyer EH, Young DL, Klein LM, Kreif J, Shumock K, Hiser S. et al. Toward a common language for measuring patient mobility in the hospital: reliability and construct validity of interprofessional mobility measures. Phys Ther 2018; 98: 133-142. 6. Falvey JR, Mangione KK, Stevens-Lapsley JE. Rethinking hospital-associated deconditioning: proposed paradigm shift. Phys Ther 2015; 95: 1307–1315. 7. Lin MR, Hwang HF, Hu MH, Wu HD, Wang YW, Huang FC. Psychometric comparisons of the timed up and go, one-leg stand, functional reach, and Tinetti balance measures in community-dwelling older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004; 52: 1343–1348. 8. Haines T, Kuys SS, Morrison G, Clarke J, Bew P, McPhail S. Development and validation of the balance outcome measure for elder rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 1614–1621. 9. Patterson AJ, Young AF, Powers JR, Brown WJ, Byles JE. Relationships between nutrition screening checklists and the health and well-being of older Australian women. Public Health Nutr 2002; 5: 65–71. 10. Posner BM, Jette AM, Smith KW, Miller DR. Nutrition and health risks in the elderly: the nutrition screening initiative. Am J Public Health 1993; 83: 972–978. 11. Gawel J, Vengrow D, Collins J, Brown S, Buchanan A, Cook C. The short physical performance battery as a predictor for long term disability or institutionalization in the com- munity dwelling population aged 65 years old or older. Phys Ther Rev 2012; 17: 37–44. 12. Freire AN, Guerra RO, Alvarado B, Guralnik JM, Zunzunegui MV. Validity and reliability of the short physical perfor- mance battery in two diverse older adult populations in Quebec and Brazil. J Aging Health 2012; 24: 863–878. 13. Neumann SA, Miller MD, Daniels LA, Ahern M, Crotty M. Mini Nutritional Assessment in geriatric rehabilitation: inter-rater reliability and relationship to body composi- tion and nutritional biochemistry. Nutrit Dietet 2007; 64: 179–185. J Rehabil Med 51, 2019