Prognostic accuracy of clinicians for back, neck and shoulder patients in routine practice
Prognostic accuracy of clinicians for back, neck and shoulder patients in routine practice
Background: chronicity amongst musculoskeletal patients remains a considerable burden and predicting outcomes in these patients has proven difficult. Although a large number of studies have investigated a range of predictors of outcome few have looked at the practitioners’ ability to discern those that improve from those most likely to fail to improve. This study aimed to investigate the ability of chiropractors to predict patient outcomes.
Methods: prediction and outcome data were collected from 440 consecutive patients with back, neck or shoulder pain accepted for chiropractic care within 5 linked private practices.
Predictions by chiropractors were compared to patient outcomes as measured by Bournemouth Questionnaire (BQ) scores, pain NRS scores and patient global impression of change (PGIC) collected at 4 and 12 weeks following the initial consultation.
Results: overall, chiropractors appear unable to accurately predict poor outcomes in their patients particularly in the longer term. Although some conditions (neck) faired a little better in some cases with some trends in short term pain scores being associated with the clinicians prediction, this was marginal. Subgrouping by practitioners or duration did not improve the performance of these predictions
Conclusions: chiropractors generally fail to reliably predict poor treatment outcome of patients at initial consultation.
Newell, David
f1a21938-9604-4f10-aac2-bb19337a638e
Field, Jonathan
a176cd68-af09-464a-aa26-fd36023fbb94
Visnes, Nita
99119036-07a4-4cbc-91bd-42c5da019005
1 December 2013
Newell, David
f1a21938-9604-4f10-aac2-bb19337a638e
Field, Jonathan
a176cd68-af09-464a-aa26-fd36023fbb94
Visnes, Nita
99119036-07a4-4cbc-91bd-42c5da019005
Newell, David, Field, Jonathan and Visnes, Nita
(2013)
Prognostic accuracy of clinicians for back, neck and shoulder patients in routine practice.
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, 21 (42).
(doi:10.1186/2045-709X-21-42).
Abstract
Background: chronicity amongst musculoskeletal patients remains a considerable burden and predicting outcomes in these patients has proven difficult. Although a large number of studies have investigated a range of predictors of outcome few have looked at the practitioners’ ability to discern those that improve from those most likely to fail to improve. This study aimed to investigate the ability of chiropractors to predict patient outcomes.
Methods: prediction and outcome data were collected from 440 consecutive patients with back, neck or shoulder pain accepted for chiropractic care within 5 linked private practices.
Predictions by chiropractors were compared to patient outcomes as measured by Bournemouth Questionnaire (BQ) scores, pain NRS scores and patient global impression of change (PGIC) collected at 4 and 12 weeks following the initial consultation.
Results: overall, chiropractors appear unable to accurately predict poor outcomes in their patients particularly in the longer term. Although some conditions (neck) faired a little better in some cases with some trends in short term pain scores being associated with the clinicians prediction, this was marginal. Subgrouping by practitioners or duration did not improve the performance of these predictions
Conclusions: chiropractors generally fail to reliably predict poor treatment outcome of patients at initial consultation.
Text
2045-709X-21-42
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 2 November 2013
Published date: 1 December 2013
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 416488
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/416488
ISSN: 2045-709X
PURE UUID: 04d8f0fe-acde-4da5-a6e8-73825b28c2cd
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 20 Dec 2017 17:30
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 04:32
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Jonathan Field
Author:
Nita Visnes
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics