Balance- and Strength-Training Protocols to Improve Chronic Ankle Instability Deficits, Part II: Assessing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Context: Assessing global, regional, and fear-of-reinjury outcomes in individuals with chronic ankle instability (CAI) is critical to understanding the effectiveness of clinical interventions. Objective: To determine the improvement of patient-reported outcomes after balance- and strength-training and control protocols among participants with CAI. Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial. Setting: Athletic training research laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: Thirty-nine volunteers with CAI who scored 11 or greater on the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability questionnaire were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: balance-training protocol (7 males, 6 females; age = 23.5 ± 6.5 years, height = 175.0 ± 8.5 cm, mass = 72.8 ± 10.9 kg), strength-training protocol (8 males, 5 females; age = 24.6 ± 7.7 years, height = 173.2 ± 9.0 cm, mass = 76.0 ± 16.2 kg), or control (6 males, 7 females; age = 24.8 ± 9.0 years, height = 175.5 ± 8.4 cm, mass = 79.1 ± 16.8 kg). Intervention(s): Each group met for 20 minutes, 3 times each week, for 6 weeks. The control group completed a mild to moderately strenuous bicycle workout. Main Outcome Measure(s): Global patient-reported outcomes, regional ankle function, and perceived instability were measured using the Disablement in the Physically Active Scale, the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure, and a visual analog scale for perceived instability. Participants completed the questionnaires at pretest and 6 weeks posttest. A multivariate repeated-measures analysis of variance with follow-up univariate analysis was conducted. The α level was set a priori at .05. Results: No time-by-group interaction was found (P = .78, η2 = 0.09). However, we observed a main effect for time (P = .001, η2 = 0.49). Follow-up univariate analyses revealed differences between the pretest and posttest for the Disablement in the Physically Active Scale (P = .02, η2 = 0.15), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (P = .001, η2 = 0.27), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure–Activities of Daily Living subscale (P = .003, η2 = 0.22), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure–Sport subscale (P = .001, η2 = 0.36), and visual analog scale (P = .008, η2 = 0.18). Conclusions: Statistically, after the 6-week intervention, all groups improved in global and regional health-related quality of life. Clinicians should compare patient-reported outcomes with clinical measures to have a better understanding of progression during rehabilitation