↓ Skip to main content

Patient-defined desired outcome, success criteria, and expectation in outpatient physical therapy: a longitudinal assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 2,255)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
60 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 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.
Title
Patient-defined desired outcome, success criteria, and expectation in outpatient physical therapy: a longitudinal assessment
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0604-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giorgio Zeppieri, Steven Z. George

Abstract

Patient-centered approaches offer an alternative method in evaluating treatment outcomes. This study investigated; 1) if patient's criteria for success (satisfaction of clinical outcomes) changes from pre to post treatment, 2) whether patients who met their success criteria also meet minimal clinical important difference scores (MCIDs), and 3) if patient's success criteria differed from their expected (what the patient believes will occur) and desired (what the patient wants to occur) outcomes following intervention. A consecutive sample of 225 subjects with complaints of musculoskeletal pain was referred to an outpatient, sports medicine physical therapy clinic. Participants completed the Patient Centered Outcome Questionnaire (PCOQ) prior to their initial evaluation session and a follow-up PCOQ at discharge. The PCOQ asks subjects to rate their pain, fatigue, emotional distress, and interference with daily activities for usual, desired, successful, and expected levels, and how important improvement is for each domain on a 101-point numerical rating scale. Paired-sample T-test were used to determine patient's pre and post success criterion and whether success criteria differed from desired and expected outcomes following intervention. Chi-squared were used to determine if individuals desired, expected, and success criteria for treatment outcome differed from established MCIDs. The results revealed no change in success criteria pre to post treatment for all domains. Chi-square test revealed patients desired, expected, and success criteria were independent of established MCIDs (P > .01). There were no differences between patients expected outcomes and success criteria. However, there were differences between patient's desired outcomes and expected and success outcomes, with patients reporting lower desired levels of pain, emotional distress, fatigue, and interference with daily activities following physical therapy intervention (P < .01). Patients in this setting do not appear to modify their success criteria throughout the course of outpatient physical therapy. Additionally, individually defined success criterion differs from established clinically important changes. Clinicians interested in a broader assessment of outcome need to consider patient determined criterion in addition MCIDs. Furthermore, desired outcomes are lower than both expectation and success criteria. In this setting, outcomes following physical therapy episodes were likely to meet patient's expectations and success criteria but not desired criterion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 145 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 15%
Other 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 34 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 43 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 27%
Psychology 6 4%
Sports and Recreations 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 40 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 06 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,003,530
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#40
of 2,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,418
of 428,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#3
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,255 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 428,331 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.