M Grotle

Diakonhjemmet Hospital (Norway), Kristiania (historical), Oslo County, Norway

Are you M Grotle?

Claim your profile

Publications (8)23.51 Total impact

  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive ability of the standardised screening tool Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire (ÖMPQ) and the clinicians' prognostic assessment in identifying patients with low back pain (LBP) and neck pain at risk for persistent pain and disability at eight weeks follow-up. Patients seeking care for LBP or neck pain were recruited by 19 manual therapists in Norway. Patients completed the ÖMPQ and the low back- or neck specific Oswestry Disability Index/Neck Disability Index at baseline and 8 weeks after first consultation. The manual therapists filled in their assessment of patient's prognosis immediately after the first consultation, blinded for patient's answers to the questionnaire. A total of 157 patients (81with neck pain and 76 with LBP) were included. The best odds for predicting the outcome for LBP patients was found for the clinicians' assessment of prognosis (LR+ = 2.1 and LR- = 0.55), whereas the likelihood ratios were similar for the two tools in the neck group. For LBP patients, both the clinicians' assessment and the ÖMPQ contributed significantly in the separate regression models (p = 0.02 and p = 0.002, resp), whereas none of the tools where significant contributors for neck patients (p = 0.67 and 0.07). Neither of the two methods showed high precision in their predictions of follow-up at eight weeks. However, for LBP patients, the ÖMPQ and the clinicians' prognostic assessment contributed significantly in the prediction of functional outcome 8 weeks after the initial assessment of manual therapist, whereas the prediction for neck patients was unsure.
    Manual therapy 09/2012; · 2.32 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To provide a thorough description of team rehabilitation care and compare the structure, process, and outcomes in two specialized arthritis rehabilitation settings. Patients with inflammatory arthritis scheduled for inpatient rehabilitation in seven specialized rehabilitation centres and three rheumatology hospital departments in Norway were included consecutively in a prospective cohort study. Patients completed questionnaires at admission, at discharge, and at a 6-month follow-up, and kept a diary regarding structure and process variables during the rehabilitation stay. Eighty patients in rehabilitation centres and 73 in hospital departments were included and 80% responded to the 6-month follow-up questionnaire. The two clinical settings differed significantly with regard to structure variables such as cost, referral of patients, length of stay, and number of health professionals involved, and most process variables reflecting treatment modalities. The most remarkable difference was in the amount of individual intervention compared with group intervention. Despite significant improvements in most outcomes at discharge, the scores deteriorated towards baseline level 6 months later. There was a trend towards more significant improvement during rehabilitation for patients at rehabilitation centres whereas patients at hospitals had more prolonged improvement. Team rehabilitation for inflammatory arthritis in two different clinical settings differed across most variables for structure and process, but few significant differences in outcome were found. Considering the substantial differences in cost, there is an urgent need for consensus concerning which patients should receive rehabilitation in which setting. Future research on the development and evaluation of methods for prolonging the beneficial effects of rehabilitation is needed.
    Scandinavian journal of rheumatology 11/2011; 41(1):20-8. · 2.51 Impact Factor
  • Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 01/2011; 19. · 4.26 Impact Factor
  • Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 01/2010; 18. · 4.26 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate health-care experiences of patients following inpatient rheumatology rehabilitation and to assess the association between these experiences and aspects of health-care delivery and patient characteristics. Data were collected from 435 patients with a rehabilitation stay of >or= 1 week at 12 institutions in Norway in 2006. At discharge, patients completed the Rehabilitation Patient Experiences Questionnaire (Re-PEQ), which includes four important aspects of patient experiences. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess associations between Re-PEQ scores, health-care process, health and sociodemographic variables. A total of 412 (94.7%) patients completed the Re-PEQ; scores ranged from 69 (social environment) to 83 (care/organization) on the 0-100 scale, where 100 represents the best possible experience. The social environment scale had the largest component of variation explained by the independent variables, which included number of doctor visits, amount of group education, and individual exercise (p < 0.01). The type of institution, number of doctor visits, mental health, and gender also explained significant components of variation in the other Re-PEQ scale scores. Patients reported good experiences with rheumatology rehabilitation. Areas where poorer experiences emerged can help target areas for future initiatives aimed at improving the quality of care. Health and sociodemographic variables should be controlled for in studies of patient experiences.
    Scandinavian journal of rheumatology 08/2009; 38(5):357-61. · 2.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Seven previous systematic reviews (SRs) have evaluated back schools, and one has evaluated brief education, with the latest SR including studies until November 2004. The effectiveness of fear-avoidance training has not been assessed. To assess the effectiveness of back schools, brief education, and fear-avoidance training for chronic low back pain (CLBP). A SR. We searched the MEDLINE database of randomized controlled trials (RCT) until August 2006 for relevant trials reported in English. Assessment of effectiveness was based on pain, disability, and sick leave. RCTs that reported back schools, or brief education as the main intervention, were included. For fear-avoidance training, evaluation of domain-specific outcome was required. Two reviewers independently reviewed the studies. Eight RCTs including 1,002 patients evaluated back schools, three studies were of high quality. We found conflicting evidence for back schools compared with waiting list, placebo, usual care, and exercises, and a cognitive behavioral back school. Twelve trials including 3,583 patients evaluated brief education. Seven trials, six of high quality, evaluated brief education in the clinical setting. We found strong evidence of effectiveness on sick leave and short-term disability compared with usual care. We found conflicting or limited evidence for back book or Internet discussion (five trials, two of high quality) compared with waiting list, no intervention, massage, yoga, or exercises. Three RCTs of high quality, including 364 patients, evaluated fear-avoidance training. We found moderate evidence that there is no difference between rehabilitation including fear-avoidance training and spinal fusion. Consistent recommendations are given for brief education in the clinical setting, and fear-avoidance training should be considered as an alternative to spinal fusion, and back schools may be considered in the occupational setting. The discordance between reviews can be attributed differences in inclusion criteria and application of evidence rules.
    The Spine Journal 12/2007; 8(6):948-58. · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • Margaret Grotle, Jens I Brox, Nina K Vøllestad
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A systematic literature review of outcome questionnaires designed for assessing functional status or disability in patients with low back pain. To provide a comprehensive overview of all functioning/disability questionnaires used in recent years and to explore how the main concept(s) was described or defined in the original paper, the content or the domains of disability, and the measurement properties of the questionnaires. A number of clinical tools designed for evaluating the functional status of patients with low back pain have been developed. Only a few have been reviewed earlier, and there has been little focus on the content reflected in the questionnaires. Papers including questionnaires for assessing disability, function, activity limitations, or participation restrictions in adult patients with low back pain were searched in the MEDLINE and CINAHL databases for the period from January 1996 to January 2002. Two independent and blinded researchers read and selected abstracts and questionnaires. The content of the included questionnaires was classified according to World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. The measurement properties were analyzed according to recommended guidelines. A total of 36 back-specific questionnaires were identified. When distinguishing among a bodily, personal, and social perspective of functioning, 4 main types of content were identified. Most of the outcome questionnaires had a mixed content reflecting various constructs such as pain and symptoms, sleep disturbances, psychological dysfunctions, physical impairments, and social functions. Nine questionnaires assessed solely activities of daily living. For one-third of the questionnaires, the measurement properties were reported in only the original study. Although most questionnaires had their main focus on activity limitations, a considerable variation with respect to the main concept and content was found. Only a few of the questionnaires can be considered acceptably validated.
    Spine 02/2005; 30(1):130-40. · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate reliability and construct validity of the Norwegian versions of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and the modified Oswestry Disability Index. Translation of two functional status questionnaires and a cross-sectional study of measurement properties. The questionnaires were translated and back-translated following the Guillemin criteria. The Norwegian versions were tested for 55 patients with acute low back pain and 50 patients with chronic low back pain. Test-retest with a 2-day interval was performed in a subsample of 28 patients from the chronic sample. Reliability was assessed by repeatability according to Bland and Altman, intraclass coefficient and coefficient of variation. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha. Concurrent construct validity was assessed with correlations between the questionnaires and the SF-36, Disability Rating Index and pain intensity. Repeatability of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire was 4 points, coefficient of variation 15% and intraclass correlation coefficient 0.89, and of the modified Oswestry Disability Index 11, 12% and 0.88, respectively. Internal consistency was 0.94 for both questionnaires. The questionnaires correlated highly with the physical functioning scale of SF-36, moderately with pain, and low with mental scales of the SF-36. The reliability and construct validity of the Norwegian versions of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and the modified Oswestry Disability Index are acceptable for assessing functional status of Norwegian-speaking patients with low back pain.
    Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 10/2003; 35(5):241-7. · 2.13 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

139 Citations
23.51 Total Impact Points


  • 2009–2012
    • Diakonhjemmet Hospital (Norway)
      Kristiania (historical), Oslo County, Norway
  • 2003–2012
    • University of Oslo
      • Department of Health Sciences
      Kristiania (historical), Oslo County, Norway