McPherson K M, Pentland B
Rehabilitation Studies Unit, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
Int J Rehabil Res. 1997 Mar;20(1):1-10. doi: 10.1097/00004356-199703000-00001.
Head injury results in a wide range of functional sequelae. Thus, measuring solely physical aspects of functioning may fail to highlight the actual level of disability. This study compares a commonly used measure of physical disability, the Barthel Index, with three recently devised measures-the OPCS Scales of Disability, the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Functional Assessment Measure (FIM + FAM). Fifty-four head-injured subjects were assessed following discharge from an in-patient rehabilitation unit utilizing each measure. The majority of subjects had no detectable disability according to the Barthel Index. In contrast, only four subjects (7%) attained maximal scores for independence with the OPCS scale; two (4%) with the FIM and only one subject (2%) with the FIM + FAM. This reflected the nature of the disabilities in activities such as intellectual functioning, communication, behaviour and wider aspects of mobility measured by the OPCS, FIM and FIM + FAM but not in the Barthel Index. The relationship between all measures was significant (Spearman ranked correlations P < 0.001) but correlations were greater between OPCS, FIM and FIM + FAM than with the Barthel. The results of this study would support considering the use of scales other than the Barthel Index when describing disability following traumatic head injury.
头部损伤会导致一系列广泛的功能后遗症。因此,仅测量功能的身体方面可能无法突出实际的残疾程度。本研究将常用的身体残疾测量方法巴氏指数与最近设计的三种测量方法——OPCS残疾量表、功能独立性测量(FIM)和功能评估测量(FIM + FAM)进行了比较。54名头部受伤的受试者在从住院康复单元出院后使用每种测量方法进行了评估。根据巴氏指数,大多数受试者没有可检测到的残疾。相比之下,只有4名受试者(7%)在OPCS量表上获得了最大独立性得分;2名受试者(4%)在FIM上获得最大得分,只有1名受试者(2%)在FIM + FAM上获得最大得分。这反映了OPCS、FIM和FIM + FAM所测量的活动中的残疾性质,如智力功能、沟通、行为和更广泛的移动方面,但在巴氏指数中没有体现。所有测量方法之间的关系具有显著性(斯皮尔曼等级相关性P < 0.001),但OPCS、FIM和FIM + FAM之间的相关性比与巴氏指数之间的相关性更大。本研究结果支持在描述创伤性脑损伤后的残疾情况时考虑使用巴氏指数以外的量表。