Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

The acceptance of the clinical photographic posture assessment tool (CPPAT)

Authors: Carole Fortin, Paul van Schaik, Jean-François Aubin-Fournier, Josette Bettany-Saltikov, Jean-Claude Bernard, Debbie Ehrmann Feldman

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is a lack of evidence-based quantitative clinical methods to adequately assess posture. Our team developed a clinical photographic posture assessment tool (CPPAT) and implemented this tool in clinical practice to standardize posture assessment. The objectives were to determine the level of acceptance of the CPPAT and to document predictors as well as facilitators of and barriers to the acceptance of this tool by clinicians doing posture re-education.

Methods

This is a prospective study focussing on technology acceptance. Thirty-two clinician participants (physical therapists and sport therapists) received a 3–5 h training workshop explaining how to use the CPPAT. Over a three-month trial, they recorded time-on-task for a complete posture evaluation (photo - and photo-processing). Subsequently, participants rated their acceptance of the tool and commented on facilitators and barriers of the clinical method.

Results

Twenty-three clinician participants completed the trial. They took 22 (mean) ± 10 min (SD) for photo acquisition and 36 min ± 19 min for photo-processing. Acceptance of the CPPAT was high. Perceived ease of use was an indirect predictor of intention to use, mediated by perceived usefulness. Analysis time was an indirect predictor, mediated by perceived usefulness, and a marginally significant direct predictor. Principal facilitators were objective measurements, visualization, utility, and ease of use. Barriers were time to do a complete analysis of posture, quality of human-computer interaction, non-automation of posture index calculation and photo transfer, and lack of versatility.

Conclusion

The CPPAT is perceived as useful and easy to use by clinicians and may facilitate the quantitative analysis of posture. Adapting the user-interface and functionality to quantify posture may facilitate a wider adoption of the tool.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
In a mediation model, the followings effects are analysed: (1) the effect of the mediator (e.g., perceived usefulness) on the outcome (e.g., intention to use), with the predictor (e.g., perceived ease of use) held constant, (2) the direct effect of the predictor on the outcome with the mediator held constant and (3) the indirect effect of the predictor on the outcome through the mediator.
 
2
Bias-corrected accelerated confidence intervals are presented, with N = 1000 bootstrap samples.
 
3
For ease of interpretation of the results, average scores on each scale were calculated, reverse-scored and then used in subsequent analysis.
 
4
Cohen’s (1988) conventions for effect size were used for d (small: ±0.2; medium: ±0.5; large: ±0.8) and r (small: ±0.1; medium: ±0.3; large: ±0.5).
 
5
Full mediation occurs when the regression coefficient of the predictor (e.g. perceived ease of use) on the outcome variable (e.g. intention to use) becomes non-significant when the mediator (e.g., perceived usefulness) is introduced.
 
Literature
1.
Kendall Peterson F, McCreary Kendall E, Provance Geise P, McIntyre R, Romani WA. Muscles: testing and function, with posture and pain. 5th ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
2.
Sahrmann SA. Diagnosis and treatment of movement impairment syndromes. Mosby Inc: St.Louis, MO; 2002.
3.
Negrini S, Fusco C, Minozzi S, Atanasio S, Zaina F, Romano M. Exercises reduce the progression rate of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: results of a comprehensive systematic review of the literature. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(10):772–85.CrossRef
4.
Romano M, Minozzi S, Bettany-Saltikov J, Zaina F, Chockalingam N, Kotwicki T, Maier-Hennes A, Negrini S. Exercises for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8 CD007837.
5.
Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Cheng JCY, Danielsson A, Morcuende JA. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Lancet. 2008;371:1527–37.CrossRef
6.
Lenssinck MLB, Frijlink AC, Berger MY, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Verkerk K, Verhagen AP. Effect of bracing and other conservative interventions in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents: a systematic review of clinical trials. Phys Ther. 2005;85(12):1329–39.PubMed
7.
Wong MS, Liu WC. Critical review on non-operative management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Prosthetics Orthot Int. 2003;27:242–53.CrossRef
8.
Pazos V, Cheriet F, Dansereau J, Ronsky J, Zernicke RF, Labelle H. Reliability of trunk shape measurements based on 3-D surface reconstruction. Eur Spine J. 2007;16:1882–91.CrossRef
9.
Zabjek KF, Leroux MA, Coillard C, Rivard CH, Prince F. Evaluation of segmental postural characteristics during quiet standing in control and idiopathic scoliosis patients. Clin Biomech. 2005;20:483–90.CrossRef
10.
Carr EK, Kenney FD, Wilson-Barrett J, Newham DJ. Inter-rater reliability of postural observation after stroke. Clin Rehabil. 1999;13:229–42.CrossRef
11.
Tyson SF, DeSouza LH. A clinical model for the assessment of posture and balance in people with stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(3):120–6.CrossRef
12.
Canhadas Belli JF, Chaves TC, de Oliveira AS, Grossi DB. Analysis of body posture in children with mild to moderate asthma. Eur J Pediatr. 2009;168:1207–16.CrossRef
13.
Fortin C, Feldman DE, Cheriet F, Labelle H. Clinical methods for quantifying body segment posture: a literature review. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(5):367–83.CrossRef
14.
McEvoy MP, Grimmer K. Reliability of upright posture measurements in primary school children. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005;6:35.CrossRef
15.
Aroeira RM, de Las Casas EB, Pertence AE, Greco M, Tavares JM. Non-invasive methods of computer vision in the posture evaluation of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2016;20(4):832–43.CrossRef
16.
Boland DM, Neufeld EV, Ruddell J, Dolezal BA, Cooper CB. Inter- and intra-rater agreement of static posture analysis using a mobile application. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(12):3398–402.CrossRef
17.
Fortin C, Ehrmann Feldman D, Cheriet F, Labelle H. Differences in standing and sitting postures of youth with idiopathic scoliosis from quantitative analysis of digital photographs. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2013;33(3):313–26.CrossRef
18.
Fortin C, Feldman Ehrmann D, Cheriet F, Gravel D, Gauthier F, Labelle H. Reliability of a quantitative clinical posture assessment tool among persons with idiopathic scoliosis. Physiotherapy. 2012;98:64–75.CrossRef
19.
Fortin C, Feldman Ehrmann D, Cheriet F, Labelle H. Validity of a quantitative clinical measurement tool of trunk posture in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2010;35(19):E988–94.CrossRef
20.
Thiyagarajan S, Tanna T. Posture analysis by using iPhone app (posture zone) in collegiate – a pilot study. Ann Yoga Phys Ther. 2016;1(1):1002.
21.
Strudwick G. Predicting nurses’ use of healthcare technology using the technology acceptance model: an integrative review. Comput Inform Nurs. 2015, 33(5):189–198; quiz E181.PubMed
22.
Van Schaick P, Bettany-Saltikov JA, Jg W. Clinical acceptance of a low cost portable system for postural assessmen. Behav Inf Technol 2002, 219(1):47–57.
23.
Robinson J, Dixon J, Macsween A, van Schaik P, Martin D. The effects of exergaming on balance, gait, technology acceptance and flow experience in people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2015;7:8.CrossRef
24.
Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int J Man Mach Stud. 1993;38(3):475–87.CrossRef
25.
Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci. 2008;39(2):273–315.CrossRef
26.
Venkatesh V, Davis FD. Theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci. 2000;46(2):186–204.CrossRef
27.
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems. 2003;27(3):425–78.CrossRef
28.
Chiou W, Perng C, Lin C. The relationship between technology acceptance model and usability test - case of performing E-learning task with PDA. 2009 WASE International Conference on Information Engineering, ICIE 2009, Taiyuan, Shanxi 2009:579–582.
29.
30.
31.
Zhao X, Lynch Jr. JG, Chen Q. Reconsidering baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. J Consum Res 2010, 37(2):197–206.CrossRef
32.
Park SY. An analysis of the technology acceptance model in Understanding University students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society. 2009;12(3):150–62.
33.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press; 2003.
34.
Cork RD, Detmer WM, Friedman CP. Development and initial validation of an instrument to measure physicians' use of, knowledge about, and attitudes toward computers. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998;5(2):164–76.CrossRef
35.
Graham ID, Logan J. Innovations in knowledge transfer and continuity of care. Can J Nurs Res. 2004;36(2):89–103.PubMed
36.
Oba N, Sasagawa S, Yamamoto A, Nakazawa K. Difference in postural control during quiet standing between young children and adults: assessment with Center of Mass Acceleration. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140235.CrossRef
37.
Kaya N. Factors affecting nurses' attitudes toward computers in healthcare. Comput Inform Nurs. 2011;29(2):121–9.CrossRef
38.
Davis FD, Venkatesh V. A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model : three experiments. Int J Human – Computer Studies. 1996;45:19–45.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The acceptance of the clinical photographic posture assessment tool (CPPAT)
Authors
Carole Fortin
Paul van Schaik
Jean-François Aubin-Fournier
Josette Bettany-Saltikov
Jean-Claude Bernard
Debbie Ehrmann Feldman
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2272-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2018 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Open reduction internal fixation vs non-operative management in proximal humerus fractures: a prospective, randomized controlled trial protocol

Research article

Biomechanical efficacy of AP, PA lag screws and posterior plating for fixation of posterior malleolar fractures: a three dimensional finite element study

Research article

Concomitant glenohumeral injuries in Neer type II distal clavicle fractures

Research article

Contributions of symptomatic osteoarthritis and physical function to incident cardiovascular disease

Research article

Phospholipase C signaling activated by parathyroid hormone mediates the rapid osteoclastogenesis in the fracture healing of orchiectomized mice

Research article

Human osteochondritis dissecans fragment-derived chondrocyte characteristics ex vivo, after monolayer expansion-induced de-differentiation, and after re-differentiation in alginate bead culture