Literature DB >> 27713580

The meaning of it all: evaluating knowledge of Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) among chiropractic students.

Rebecca J Wates1, Ike Woodruff1, Mark T Pfefer1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcome measures are frequently used to monitor patient progress during chiropractic care, yet student interns utilizing such assessments are unfamiliar with what magnitude of change (MCID) is considered beneficial to the patient.
OBJECTIVE: This work seeks to determine chiropractic intern knowledge of MCID.
METHODS: A five-item survey was administered to 104 chiropractic student interns.
RESULTS: Nearly one-third of the interns correctly defined the MCID acronym, and approximately one-third of the interns knew at least one MCID value for the outcome assessments in the EHR. Surprisingly, 20% of the interns reported knowledge of at least one MCID value, but answered incorrectly pertaining to the MCID acronym.
CONCLUSION: Student interns value patient perception, but have limited knowledge of MCID values. Addressing this gap will improve their understanding of patient progress and inform their treatment decisions both in the outpatient clinic and in their practices following graduation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MCID; chiropractic; education; minimal clinically important difference

Year:  2016        PMID: 27713580      PMCID: PMC5039774     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc        ISSN: 0008-3194


  38 in total

Review 1.  Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness.

Authors:  D E Beaton
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Ross D Crosby; Ronette L Kolotkin; G Rhys Williams
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Clinical update: low back pain.

Authors:  Federico Balagué; Anne F Mannion; Ferran Pellisé; Christine Cedraschi
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2007-03-03       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 4.  Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.

Authors:  Anne G Copay; Brian R Subach; Steven D Glassman; David W Polly; Thomas C Schuler
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-04-02       Impact factor: 4.166

5.  The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference.

Authors:  Dan Turner; Holger J Schünemann; Lauren E Griffith; Dorcas E Beaton; Anne M Griffiths; Jeffrey N Critch; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Outcomes research: measuring the end results of health care.

Authors:  C M Clancy; J M Eisenberg
Journal:  Science       Date:  1998-10-09       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Clinically significant changes in pain along the visual analog scale.

Authors:  S B Bird; E W Dickson
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 5.721

8.  Chiropractic students and research: assessing the research culture at a north american chiropractic college.

Authors:  Kenneth A Weber Ii; Xiaohua He
Journal:  J Chiropr Educ       Date:  2010

Review 9.  Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; David Osoba; Albert W Wu; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Geoffrey R Norman
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.616

10.  Chiropractic identity, role and future: a survey of North American chiropractic students.

Authors:  Jordan A Gliedt; Cheryl Hawk; Michelle Anderson; Kashif Ahmad; Dinah Bunn; Jerrilyn Cambron; Brian Gleberzon; John Hart; Anupama Kizhakkeveettil; Stephen M Perle; Michael Ramcharan; Stephanie Sullivan; Liang Zhang
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2015-02-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.