| Title |
The patient’s perspective of the feasibility of a patient-specific instrument in physiotherapy goal setting: a qualitative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s97912 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anita Stevens, Albine Moser, Albère Köke, Trudy van der Weijden, Anna Beurskens |
| Abstract |
Patient participation in goal setting is important to deliver client-centered care. In daily practice, however, patient involvement in goal setting is not optimal. Patient-specific instruments, such as the Patient Specific Complaints (PSC) instrument, can support the goal-setting process because patients can identify and rate their own problems. The aim of this study is to explore patients' experiences with the feasibility of the PSC, in the physiotherapy goal setting. We performed a qualitative study. Data were collected by observations of physiotherapy sessions (n=23) and through interviews with patients (n=23) with chronic conditions in physiotherapy practices. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis. The PSC was used at different moments and in different ways. Two feasibility themes were analyzed. First was the perceived ambiguity with the process of administration: patients perceived a broad range of experiences, such as emotional and supportive, as well as feeling a type of uncomfortableness. The second was the perceived usefulness: patients found the PSC useful for themselves - to increase awareness and motivation and to inform the physiotherapist - as well as being useful for the physiotherapist - to determine appropriate treatment for their personal needs. Some patients did not perceive any usefulness and were not aware of any relation with their treatment. Patients with a more positive attitude toward questionnaires, patients with an active role, and health-literate patients appreciated the PSC and felt facilitated by it. Patients who lacked these attributes did not fully understand the PSC's process or purpose and let the physiotherapist take the lead. The PSC is a feasible tool to support patient participation in the physiotherapy goal setting. However, in the daily use of the PSC, patients are not always fully involved and informed. Patients reported varied experiences related to their personal attributes and modes of administration. This means that the PSC cannot be used in the same way in every patient. It is perfectly suited to use in a dialogue manner, which makes it very suitable to improve goal setting within client-centered care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 85 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 22 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 16% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 25 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,169,949
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#809
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,417
of 312,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#34
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 312,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.