A C Verburg1, S A van Dulmen2, H Kiers3,4, M W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden2, P J van der Wees2. 1. Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. koen.verburg@radboudumc.nl. 2. Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Institute for Human Movement Studies, Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Association for Quality in Physical Therapy (SKF), Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop a clinical standard set of outcome measures that are accepted for relevance and feasibility by stakeholders and useful for (a) interaction between patient and the professional, e.g. shared decision-making in goal-setting, monitoring and feedback based on outcomes, (b) internal quality improvement, and (c) external transparency in patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) in primary care physical therapy. METHODS: We used a consensus-driven modified RAND-UCLA Delphi method in seven steps with panellists (patients, representatives of patient and physiotherapy associations, researchers, policy makers, health insurers): (1) literature search, (2) first online survey, (3) patient interviews, (4) an experts meeting, (5) a consensus meeting, (6) second online survey, and (7) final approval of an advisory board. Steps 1-4 resulted in potential outcome measures. In the consensus meeting after discussion panellists voted for inclusion per measure. In the second online survey the final standard set was rated on relevance and feasibility on a 9-point Likert scale; when the median score was ≥ 7, the standard set was accepted and finally approved. RESULTS: Thirteen draft outcome measures were rated and discussed, and finally, six outcome measures were accepted. The standard set includes the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-Specific Functional Scale, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Global Perceived Effect (GPE-DV), and the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT). CONCLUSION: This study presents a standard set of outcome measures for patients with NSLBP in primary care physiotherapy accepted for relevance and feasibility by stakeholders. The standard set is currently used in daily practice and tested on validity and reliability in a pilot study. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: To develop a clinical standard set of outcome measures that are accepted for relevance and feasibility by stakeholders and useful for (a) interaction between patient and the professional, e.g. shared decision-making in goal-setting, monitoring and feedback based on outcomes, (b) internal quality improvement, and (c) external transparency in patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) in primary care physical therapy. METHODS: We used a consensus-driven modified RAND-UCLA Delphi method in seven steps with panellists (patients, representatives of patient and physiotherapy associations, researchers, policy makers, health insurers): (1) literature search, (2) first online survey, (3) patient interviews, (4) an experts meeting, (5) a consensus meeting, (6) second online survey, and (7) final approval of an advisory board. Steps 1-4 resulted in potential outcome measures. In the consensus meeting after discussion panellists voted for inclusion per measure. In the second online survey the final standard set was rated on relevance and feasibility on a 9-point Likert scale; when the median score was ≥ 7, the standard set was accepted and finally approved. RESULTS: Thirteen draft outcome measures were rated and discussed, and finally, six outcome measures were accepted. The standard set includes the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-Specific Functional Scale, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Global Perceived Effect (GPE-DV), and the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT). CONCLUSION: This study presents a standard set of outcome measures for patients with NSLBP in primary care physiotherapy accepted for relevance and feasibility by stakeholders. The standard set is currently used in daily practice and tested on validity and reliability in a pilot study. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Entities:
Keywords:
Delphi; Non-specific low back pain; Outcome measures; PREMs; PROMs
Authors: A J Beurskens; H C de Vet; A J Köke; E Lindeman; G J van der Heijden; W Regtop; P G Knipschild Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 1999 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: A K Burton; F Balagué; G Cardon; H R Eriksen; Y Henrotin; A Lahad; A Leclerc; G Müller; A J van der Beek Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: O Airaksinen; J I Brox; C Cedraschi; J Hildebrandt; J Klaber-Moffett; F Kovacs; A F Mannion; S Reis; J B Staal; H Ursin; G Zanoli Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Maurits van Tulder; Annette Becker; Trudy Bekkering; Alan Breen; Maria Teresa Gil del Real; Allen Hutchinson; Bart Koes; Even Laerum; Antti Malmivaara Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Rob A B Oostendorp; J W Hans Elvers; Emiel van Trijffel; Geert M Rutten; Gwendolyne G M Scholten-Peeters; Marcel Heijmans; Erik Hendriks; Emilia Mikolajewska; Margot De Kooning; Marjan Laekeman; Jo Nijs; Nathalie Roussel; Han Samwel Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Rob A B Oostendorp; Hans Elvers; Emiel van Trijffel; Geert M Rutten; Gwendolyne G M Scholten-Peeters; Margot De Kooning; Marjan Laekeman; Jo Nijs; Nathalie Roussel; Han Samwel Journal: Front Pain Res (Lausanne) Date: 2022-08-30