Dataset Information

Difference between physical therapist estimation and psychological patient-reported outcome measures in patients with low back pain.

ABSTRACT: Minimizing the number of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can reduce patient burden. The primary aim of the present study was to investigate whether physical therapists (PTs) can estimate psychological PROM scores in patients with low back pain (LBP) through physical therapy evaluation. The secondary aims were; 1) to investigate whether the clinical experiences of PTs influence correlations between PT estimates and psychological PROM scores, and 2) to investigate the sensitivity and specificity of PT estimates for the psychological features detected by the PROMs. We recruited hospitalized patients owing to LBP, who underwent evaluation by PTs on the initial day of hospitalization. Patients completed PROMs, including the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale immediately before the initial physical therapy session. PTs rated the magnitude of patient kinesiophobia, pain catastrophizing, anxiety, and depression using an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS; 0 = not detected at all, 10 = very highly detected) through physical therapy evaluation immediately after the initial session. The PTs were blinded to the PROM results. We categorized PTs into two subgroups (PTs with ?4 years and those with <4 years of clinical experience). Data from 78 patients (mean [SD] age = 60.5 [16.3] years) and 21 PTs were analyzed. A statistically significant but weak correlation (P = .04, Spearman's ? = .24) was detected only in the total PCS scores and PT NRS scores in a dataset of all patients and PTs. Further, there were no statistically significant differences in correlations (all P >.05) between the two subgroups of PTs in all measures. Low sensitivity and high specificity of PT estimates for psychological features through physical therapy evaluation were identified in all PROMs when PT NRS scores were categorized into the binary score by 5 (negative: <5; positive: ?5).

SUBMITTER: Miki T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6974035 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Difference between physical therapist estimation and psychological patient-reported outcome measures in patients with low back pain.

Miki Takahiro T Kondo Yu Y Takebayashi Tsuneo T Takasaki Hiroshi H

PloS one 20200121 1

Minimizing the number of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can reduce patient burden. The primary aim of the present study was to investigate whether physical therapists (PTs) can estimate psychological PROM scores in patients with low back pain (LBP) through physical therapy evaluation. The secondary aims were; 1) to investigate whether the clinical experiences of PTs influence correlations between PT estimates and psychological PROM scores, and 2) to investigate the sensitivity and spe ...[more]

PMID: 31961900

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding which patient-reported outcome measures are being collected and utilized in clinical practice and research for patients with neck pain will help to inform recommendations for a core set of measures that provide value to patients and clinicians during diagnosis, clinical decision-making, goal setting and evaluation of responsiveness to treatment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a review of systematic reviews using a qualitative synthesis on the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients presenting with neck pain to physical therapy.MethodsAn electronic search of systematic reviews and guideline publications was performed using MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), and Web of Science (Clarivate) databases to identify reviews that evaluated physical therapy interventions or interventions commonly performed by a physical therapist for individuals with neck pain and included at least one patient-reported outcome measure. The frequency and variability in which the outcome measures were reported among the studies in the review and the constructs for which they measured were evaluated. The evaluation of a core set of outcome measures was assessed. Risk of bias and quality assessment was performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2.ResultsOf the initial 7,003 articles, a total of 37 studies were included in the final review. Thirty-one PROMs were represented within the 37 reviews with eleven patient-reported outcome measures in three or more reviews. The eleven PROMs assessed the constructs of disability, pain intensity, psychosocial factors and quality of life. The greatest variability was found amongst individual measures assessing psychosocial factors. Assessment of psychosocial factors was the least represented construct in the included studies. Overall, the most frequently utilized patient reported outcome measures were the Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale. The most frequently used measures evaluating the constructs of disability, pain intensity, quality of life and psychosocial functioning included the Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, Short-Form-36 health survey and Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire respectively. Overall risk of bias and quality assessment confidence levels ranged from critically low (2 studies), low (12 studies), moderate (8 studies), and high (15 studies).ConclusionThis study identified a core set of patient-reported outcome measures that represented the constructs of disability, pain intensity and quality of life. This review recommends the collection and use of the Neck Disability Index and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analog Scale. Recommendation for a QoL measure needs to be considered in the context of available resources and administrative burden. Further research is needed to confidently recommend a QoL and psychosocial measure for patients presenting with neck pain. Other measures that were not included in this review but should be further evaluated for patients with neck pain are the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical function, PROMIS Pain Interference and the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) tool.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), visual analog scale (VAS) of pain intensity, and numerical rating scale (NRS) are among the most commonly used outcome measures in trials of interventions for low back pain. Their use in paper form is well established. Few data are available on the metric properties of electronic counterparts. OBJECTIVE:The goal of our research was to establish responsiveness, minimally important change (MIC) thresholds, reliability, and minimal detectable change at a 95% level (MDC95) for electronic versions of the RMDQ, VAS, and NRS as delivered via iOS and Android apps and Web browser. METHODS:We recruited adults with low back pain who visited osteopaths. We invited participants to complete the eRMDQ, eVAS, and eNRS at baseline, 1 week, and 6 weeks along with a health transition question at 1 and 6 weeks. Data from participants reporting recovery were used in MIC and responsiveness analyses using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves and areas under the ROC curves (AUCs). Data from participants reporting stability were used for analyses of reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] agreement) and MDC95. RESULTS:We included 442 participants. At 1 and 6 weeks, ROC AUCs were 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.80) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.87) for the eRMDQ, 0.69 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.80) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95) for the eVAS, and 0.73 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.80) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.92) for the eNRS, respectively. Associated MIC thresholds were estimated as 1 (0 to 2) and 2 (-1 to 5), 13 (9 to 17) and 7 (-12 to 26), and 2 (1 to 3) and 1 (0 to 2) points, respectively. Over a 1-week period in participants categorized as "stable" and "about the same" using the transition question, ICCs were 0.87 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.95) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.91) for the eRMDQ with MDC95 of 4 and 5, 0.31 (95% CI -0.25 to 0.71) and 0.61 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.77) for the eVAS with MDC95 of 39 and 34, and 0.52 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.77) to 0.67 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.78) with MDC95 of 4 and 3 for the eNRS. CONCLUSIONS:The eRMDQ was reliable with borderline adequate responsiveness. The eNRS was responsive with borderline reliability. While the eVAS had adequate responsiveness, it did not have an attractive reliability profile. Thus, the eNRS might be preferred over the eVAS for measuring pain intensity. The observed electronic outcome measures' metric properties are within the ranges of values reported in the literature for their paper counterparts and are adequate for measuring changes in a low back pain population.

Project description:The purpose of this study was to define and select a core set of outcome-based quality indicators, accepted by stakeholders on usability and perceived added value as a quality improvement tool, and to formulate recommendations for the next implementation step. In phase 1, 15 potential quality indicators were defined for patient-reported outcome measures and associated domains, namely the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain intensity, the Patient Specific Functioning Scale (PSFS) for physical activity, the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale for physical functioning, and the Global Perceived Effect-Dutch Version for perceived effect. Their comparability and discriminatory characteristics were described using cohort data. In phase 2, a core set of quality indicators was selected based on consensus among stakeholders in focus group meetings. In total, 65,815 completed treatment episodes for patients with nonspecific low back pain were provided by 1009 physical therapists from 219 physical therapist practices. The discriminability between physical therapists of all potential 15 quality indicators was adequate, with intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.08 and 0.30. Stakeholders selected a final core set of 6 quality indicators: 2 process indicators (the routine measurement of NPRS and the PSFS) and 4 outcome indicators (pretreatment and posttreatment change scores for the NPRS, PSFS, Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, and the minimal clinically important difference of the Global Perceived Effect-Dutch Version). This study described and selected a core set of outcome-based quality indicators for physical therapy in patients with nonspecific low back pain. The set was accepted by stakeholders for having added value for daily practice in physical therapy primary care and was found useful for quality improvement initiatives. Further studies need to focus on improvement of using the core set of outcome-based quality indicators as a quality monitoring and evaluation instrument. Patient-reported outcome-based quality indicators developed from routinely collected clinical data are promising for use in quality improvement in daily practice.

Project description:ObjectiveIdentifying subgroups of low back pain (LBP) has the potential to improve prediction of clinical outcomes. Risk stratification is one such strategy that identifies similar characteristics indicative of a common clinical outcome trajectory. The purpose of this study was to determine if an empirically derived subgrouping approach based on physical impairment measures improves information provided from the STarT Back Tool (SBT).MethodsAt baseline in this secondary analysis of a cohort study, patients (N = 144) receiving physical therapy for LBP completed the SBT and tests (active lumbar flexion, extension, lateral bending, and passive straight-leg raise) from a validated physical impairment index. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 4 weeks and included the Numerical Pain Rating Scale and Oswestry Disability Index. Exploratory hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis identified empirically derived subgroups based on physical impairment measures. Independent samples t testing and chi-square analysis were used to assess baseline subgroup differences in demographic and clinical measures. Spearman rho correlation coefficient was used to assess baseline SBT risk and impairment subgroup relationships, and a 3-way mixed-model ANOVA was used to assessed SBT risk and impairment subgroup relationships with clinical outcomes at 4 weeks.ResultsTwo physical impairment-based subgroups emerged from cluster analysis: (1) low-risk impairment (n = 119, 81.5%), characterized by greater lumbar mobility; and (2) high-risk impairment (n = 25, 17.1%), characterized by less lumbar mobility. A weak, positive relationship was observed between baseline SBT risk and impairment subgroups (rs = .170). An impairment-by-SBT risk-by-time interaction effect was observed for Oswestry Disability Index scores but not for Numerical Pain Rating Scale scores at 4 weeks.ConclusionsPhysical impairment subgroups were not redundant with SBT risk categories and could improve prediction of 4-week LBP disability outcomes. Physical impairment subgroups did not improve the prediction of 4-week pain intensity scores.ImpactSubgroups based on physical impairment and psychosocial risk could lead to better prediction of LBP disability outcomes and eventually allow for treatment options tailored to physical and psychosocial risk.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Developing successful interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain requires valid, responsive, and reliable outcome measures. The Minneapolis VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program completed a focused evidence review on key psychometric properties of 17 self-report measures of pain severity and pain-related functional impairment suitable for clinical research on chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS:Pain experts of the VA Pain Measurement Outcomes Workgroup identified 17 pain measures to undergo systematic review. In addition to a MEDLINE search on these 17 measures (1/2000-1/2017), we hand-searched (without publication date limits) the reference lists of all included studies, prior systematic reviews, and-when available-Web sites dedicated to each measure (PROSPERO registration CRD42017056610). Our primary outcome was the measure's minimal important difference (MID). Secondary outcomes included responsiveness, validity, and test-retest reliability. Outcomes were synthesized through evidence mapping and qualitative comparison. RESULTS:Of 1635 abstracts identified, 331 articles underwent full-text review, and 43 met inclusion criteria. Five measures (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), SF-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS)) had data reported on MID, responsiveness, validity, and test-retest reliability. Seven measures had data reported on three of the four psychometric outcomes. Eight measures had reported MIDs, though estimation methods differed substantially and often were not clinically anchored. CONCLUSIONS:In this focused evidence review, the most evidence on key psychometric properties in chronic musculoskeletal pain populations was found for the ODI, RMDQ, SF-36 BPS, NRS, and VAS. Key limitations in the field include substantial variation in methods of estimating psychometric properties, defining chronic musculoskeletal pain, and reporting patient demographics. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registered in the PROSPERO database: CRD42017056610.

Dataset Information

Difference between physical therapist estimation and psychological patient-reported outcome measures in patients with low back pain.

Publications

Difference between physical therapist estimation and psychological patient-reported outcome measures in patients with low back pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets