↓ Skip to main content

The Influence of Patient Choice of First Provider on Costs and Outcomes: Analysis From a Physical Therapy Patient Registry.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
127 X users
facebook
19 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
podcasts
2 podcasts

Readers on

mendeley
182 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
The Influence of Patient Choice of First Provider on Costs and Outcomes: Analysis From a Physical Therapy Patient Registry.
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, October 2017
DOI 10.2519/jospt.2018.7423
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Study Design Retrospective study. Background Alternative models of care which allow patients to choose direct access to physical therapy have shown promise in terms of cost reduction for neck and back pain. However, real-world exploration within the U.S. healthcare system is notably limited. Objectives To compare total claims paid and patient outcomes for patients with neck and back pain who chose physical therapy intervention via direct access versus from medical referral. Methods Data were accessed for care-seeking patients (n=603) between 2012-2014 with neck or back pain who chose to begin care either through traditional medical referral or direct access to a physical therapy led spine management program. All patients received a standardized pragmatic physical therapy approach with pre/post patient measures of pain and disability. Information on patient demographics and outcomes were obtained from the Medical Center Patient Registry and was combined with total claims paid calculated for the year after the index claim. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to analyze group differences in pain/disability, visits/time, and annualized costs. Results Patients who chose to enter care via the direct access physical therapy-led spine management program displayed significantly less total costs (mean difference = $1543; 95% CI: $51 - $3028, P=.04) than those who chose traditional medical referral. Patients in both groups showed clinically important improvements in pain/disability measures, with improvements being similar for both groups (P>.05). Conclusions The initial patient choice to begin care with a physical therapist for back or neck pain resulted in lower cost of care over the next year while resulting in similar improvement in patient outcomes upon discharge from physical therapy. Our data add to emerging literature suggesting that patients' choice to access physical therapy through direct access may be associated with lower health care expenditures for patients with neck and back pain. Level of Evidence Economic and decision analyses, level 4. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, Epub 26 Oct 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7423.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 127 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 182 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Other 14 8%
Researcher 14 8%
Other 39 21%
Unknown 64 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 48 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 17%
Sports and Recreations 7 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 73 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 159. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 November 2025.
All research outputs
#325,247
of 34,386,255 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
#87
of 2,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,234
of 371,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
#7
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,386,255 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,750 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.