Patient expectations and levels of satisfaction in chiropractic treatment for lumbar radiculopathy. A mixed methods study.
Chiropractic
Patient satisfaction
Radiculopathy
Standardised care package
Journal
Chiropractic & manual therapies
ISSN: 2045-709X
Titre abrégé: Chiropr Man Therap
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101551481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 05 2023
19 05 2023
Historique:
received:
09
02
2023
accepted:
27
04
2023
medline:
22
5
2023
pubmed:
20
5
2023
entrez:
19
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Chiropractic patients are generally satisfied with the care received. It is unclear if this also applies to Danish patients with lumbar radiculopathy included in a standardised chiropractic care package (SCCP). This study aimed to investigate patient satisfaction and explore perspectives on the SCCP for lumbar radiculopathy. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design with three separate phases was used. Phase one was a quantitative analysis based on a survey in a prospective cohort of patients with lumbar radiculopathy in an SCCP from 2018 to 2020. Patients rated their satisfaction with the examination, information, treatment effect, and overall management of their problem on a 0-10 scale. In phase two, six semi-structured interviews conducted in 2021 were used to gain further explanatory insights into the findings from phase one. Data were analysed using systematic text condensation. In phase three, the quantitative and qualitative data were merged in a narrative joint display to obtain a deeper understanding of the overall results. Of 303 eligible patients, 238 responded to the survey. Of these, 80-90% were very satisfied (≥ 8) when asked about the examination, information, and overall management, whereas 50% were very satisfied with the treatment effect. The qualitative analysis led to the emergence of four themes: 'Understanding the standardised care packages', 'Expectations regarding consultation and treatment effect', 'Information about diagnosis and prognosis', and 'Interdisciplinary collaboration'. The joint display analysis showed that high patient satisfaction with the examination could be explained by the patients' feeling of being carefully and thoroughly examined by the chiropractor and by referrals to MRI. Advice and information given to patients on variations in symptoms and the expected prognosis were considered reassuring. Satisfaction with the chiropractor's coordination of care and with referral to other healthcare professionals was explained by the patients' positive experiences of coordinated care and their sense of alleviated responsibility. Overall, patients were satisfied with the SCCP for lumbar radiculopathy. From a patient's perspective, the consultation should include a thorough examination and a focus on communication and information relating to symptoms and prognosis, while expectations regarding the content and efficacy of the treatment should be addressed and aligned.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Chiropractic patients are generally satisfied with the care received. It is unclear if this also applies to Danish patients with lumbar radiculopathy included in a standardised chiropractic care package (SCCP). This study aimed to investigate patient satisfaction and explore perspectives on the SCCP for lumbar radiculopathy.
METHODS
An explanatory sequential mixed methods design with three separate phases was used. Phase one was a quantitative analysis based on a survey in a prospective cohort of patients with lumbar radiculopathy in an SCCP from 2018 to 2020. Patients rated their satisfaction with the examination, information, treatment effect, and overall management of their problem on a 0-10 scale. In phase two, six semi-structured interviews conducted in 2021 were used to gain further explanatory insights into the findings from phase one. Data were analysed using systematic text condensation. In phase three, the quantitative and qualitative data were merged in a narrative joint display to obtain a deeper understanding of the overall results.
RESULTS
Of 303 eligible patients, 238 responded to the survey. Of these, 80-90% were very satisfied (≥ 8) when asked about the examination, information, and overall management, whereas 50% were very satisfied with the treatment effect. The qualitative analysis led to the emergence of four themes: 'Understanding the standardised care packages', 'Expectations regarding consultation and treatment effect', 'Information about diagnosis and prognosis', and 'Interdisciplinary collaboration'. The joint display analysis showed that high patient satisfaction with the examination could be explained by the patients' feeling of being carefully and thoroughly examined by the chiropractor and by referrals to MRI. Advice and information given to patients on variations in symptoms and the expected prognosis were considered reassuring. Satisfaction with the chiropractor's coordination of care and with referral to other healthcare professionals was explained by the patients' positive experiences of coordinated care and their sense of alleviated responsibility.
CONCLUSION
Overall, patients were satisfied with the SCCP for lumbar radiculopathy. From a patient's perspective, the consultation should include a thorough examination and a focus on communication and information relating to symptoms and prognosis, while expectations regarding the content and efficacy of the treatment should be addressed and aligned.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37208689
doi: 10.1186/s12998-023-00486-0
pii: 10.1186/s12998-023-00486-0
pmc: PMC10197044
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
13Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Qual Prim Care. 2014;22(2):57-61
pubmed: 24762314
BMC Fam Pract. 2020 Dec 21;21(1):275
pubmed: 33342429
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008 Apr;13(2):92-8
pubmed: 18416914
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Oct 15;38(22):1939-46
pubmed: 23883826
N Engl J Med. 2007 May 31;356(22):2245-56
pubmed: 17538084
JAMA. 2006 Nov 22;296(20):2441-50
pubmed: 17119140
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Jul 1;36(15):1251-6
pubmed: 21343854
Physiotherapy. 1980 Aug;66(8):271-3
pubmed: 6450426
BMJ Open. 2013 May 28;3(5):
pubmed: 23793663
BMJ. 2019 Nov 19;367:l6273
pubmed: 31744805
Chiropr Man Therap. 2022 Mar 8;30(1):14
pubmed: 35260181
Pain Med. 2010 Oct;11(10):1489-99
pubmed: 21199303
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
Spine J. 2018 Apr;18(4):691-711
pubmed: 29373836
BMJ Open. 2020 Aug 23;10(8):e037820
pubmed: 32830105
Qual Health Res. 2016 Nov;26(13):1753-1760
pubmed: 26613970
Chiropr Man Therap. 2018 Aug 30;26:27
pubmed: 30181868
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jun 21;19(1):406
pubmed: 31226997
Eval Program Plann. 1983;6(3-4):185-210
pubmed: 10299618
Chiropr Man Therap. 2015 Jan 16;23(1):3
pubmed: 25628858
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2018 Jul - Aug;41(6):445-455
pubmed: 30121129
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Feb 28;15:79
pubmed: 25889958
Scand J Caring Sci. 2002 Sep;16(3):329-33
pubmed: 12191046
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3100-3
pubmed: 11124724
Perspect Public Health. 2017 Mar;137(2):89-101
pubmed: 27004489
Spine J. 2014 Aug 1;14(8):1769-80
pubmed: 24787355
Man Ther. 2016 Dec;26:183-191
pubmed: 27705840
Spine J. 2022 Feb;22(2):207-213
pubmed: 34551322
Physiother Theory Pract. 2022 Sep 7;:1-8
pubmed: 36069530
Eval Program Plann. 1983;6(3-4):247-63
pubmed: 10267253
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Mar 31;18(1):133
pubmed: 28359275
Health Expect. 2021 Apr;24(2):648-658
pubmed: 33599389
J Healthc Manag. 2005 Sep-Oct;50(5):311-24; discussion 324-5
pubmed: 16268410
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jun 1;30(11):1331-4
pubmed: 15928561
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Nov 15;25(22):2940-52; discussion 2952
pubmed: 11074683
Eur Spine J. 2018 Jan;27(1):60-75
pubmed: 28429142
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 May;29(5):921-5
pubmed: 20439881
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Dec 1;34(25):2797-802
pubmed: 19910869
Scand J Public Health. 2012 Dec;40(8):795-805
pubmed: 23221918