OBJECTIVE: The aims of this observational, prospective cohort study were to: assess the patients' and therapists' perception of change after physiotherapy in an orthopedic hospital's outpatient clinic; relate these retrospective assessments to a serial assessment of pain; and study the influence of patient characteristics on the perceived change. METHODS: 161 patients of the outpatient clinic participated. The main outcome measures were the patient global impression of change (PGIC) and the clinical global impression of change (CGIC) after physiotherapy. The visual analogue scale was used as serial assessment. RESULTS: The PGIC indicated improvement in 128 patients (80%) and the CGIC in 117 patients (73%). The correlation between PGIC and CGIC was good (rS = 0.71, p < 0.001). The perceived change correlated little to baseline pain (PGIC: rS = 0.24, p = 0.004; CGIC: rS = 0.18, p = 0.024) and change in pain due to physiotherapy (PGIC: rS = -0.22, p = 0.004; CGIC: rS = -0.31, p < 0.001). The logistic regression model revealed a significant influence of the patients' education level and the number of problems on the PGIC and the CGIC. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of at least one GPC scale might be valuable in evaluating the outcome in physical therapy, which requires little time and thus may be ideal for a clinical setting. Patients' and therapists' perception of change is significantly influenced by the patients' education level and the number of problems, which might be of relevance when choosing adequate treatment strategies.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this observational, prospective cohort study were to: assess the patients' and therapists' perception of change after physiotherapy in an orthopedic hospital's outpatient clinic; relate these retrospective assessments to a serial assessment of pain; and study the influence of patient characteristics on the perceived change. METHODS: 161 patients of the outpatient clinic participated. The main outcome measures were the patient global impression of change (PGIC) and the clinical global impression of change (CGIC) after physiotherapy. The visual analogue scale was used as serial assessment. RESULTS: The PGIC indicated improvement in 128 patients (80%) and the CGIC in 117 patients (73%). The correlation between PGIC and CGIC was good (rS = 0.71, p < 0.001). The perceived change correlated little to baseline pain (PGIC: rS = 0.24, p = 0.004; CGIC: rS = 0.18, p = 0.024) and change in pain due to physiotherapy (PGIC: rS = -0.22, p = 0.004; CGIC: rS = -0.31, p < 0.001). The logistic regression model revealed a significant influence of the patients' education level and the number of problems on the PGIC and the CGIC. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of at least one GPC scale might be valuable in evaluating the outcome in physical therapy, which requires little time and thus may be ideal for a clinical setting. Patients' and therapists' perception of change is significantly influenced by the patients' education level and the number of problems, which might be of relevance when choosing adequate treatment strategies.