{"title":"澳大利亚整骨医生对患者报告结果的利用和态度:一项横断面研究","authors":"Michael Fleischmann , Gary Fryer","doi":"10.1016/j.ijosm.2022.07.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p><span>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide information on patients’ views of their symptoms, functional status, health related quality of life and are an important part of evidence-informed practice and patient-centred care. The utilisation of and attitudes to PROMs by Australian </span>osteopaths is unknown.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>An online survey was designed to investigate the self-reported utilisation of PROMs by Australian osteopaths, including the frequency of use, the types of PROMs used, the features of PROMs are most useful, the attitudes towards PROMs, and the barriers and enablers for use of PROMs. The survey was a 14-item questionnaire that used a 5-point Likert scale or required free text answers. The effect of gender and years in practice was analysed using Mann-Whitney U tests. Effect sizes were calculated where possible.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>166 (male = 69, female = 97) osteopaths participated in the survey. Nearly half (47.6%) reported that pain scales were used ‘frequently’ or ‘always’, but there was less frequent use of PROMs other than pain scales (14.2%), except for third party paying patients (57.4%). Australian osteopaths reported using PROMs most frequently for patients with neck pain (31%) and low back pain (29%). The majority agreed PROMs were important for tracking improvement in patients (61%). The greatest barrier identified by osteopaths was the burden on consultation time.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study highlighted only the minority of Australian osteopaths use PROMs frequently and consider them important. Professional organisations should consider professional development aimed to upskill and support practitioners in the efficient use of PROMs in practice.</p></div><div><h3>Implications for clinical practice</h3><p></p><ul><li><span>•</span><span><p>Nearly half (47.6%) of 166 osteopaths reported using pain scales ‘frequently’ or ‘always’, but there was a less frequent use of PROMs other than pain scales (14.2%), except for third party paying patients (57.4%).</p></span></li><li><span>•</span><span><p>The majority of osteopaths agreed that PROMs were important for tracking clinical improvement in patients (61%), although only 48% agreed that PROMs were important in osteopathic practice.</p></span></li><li><span>•</span><span><p>The greatest barrier identified by osteopaths to using PROMs was the burden on consultation time and most common enabler was the requirement of PROMs by third party payers.</p></span></li></ul></div>","PeriodicalId":51068,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The utilisation and attitudes to patient reported outcome measures by Australian osteopaths: A cross sectional study\",\"authors\":\"Michael Fleischmann , Gary Fryer\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijosm.2022.07.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p><span>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide information on patients’ views of their symptoms, functional status, health related quality of life and are an important part of evidence-informed practice and patient-centred care. The utilisation of and attitudes to PROMs by Australian </span>osteopaths is unknown.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>An online survey was designed to investigate the self-reported utilisation of PROMs by Australian osteopaths, including the frequency of use, the types of PROMs used, the features of PROMs are most useful, the attitudes towards PROMs, and the barriers and enablers for use of PROMs. The survey was a 14-item questionnaire that used a 5-point Likert scale or required free text answers. The effect of gender and years in practice was analysed using Mann-Whitney U tests. Effect sizes were calculated where possible.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>166 (male = 69, female = 97) osteopaths participated in the survey. Nearly half (47.6%) reported that pain scales were used ‘frequently’ or ‘always’, but there was less frequent use of PROMs other than pain scales (14.2%), except for third party paying patients (57.4%). Australian osteopaths reported using PROMs most frequently for patients with neck pain (31%) and low back pain (29%). The majority agreed PROMs were important for tracking improvement in patients (61%). The greatest barrier identified by osteopaths was the burden on consultation time.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study highlighted only the minority of Australian osteopaths use PROMs frequently and consider them important. Professional organisations should consider professional development aimed to upskill and support practitioners in the efficient use of PROMs in practice.</p></div><div><h3>Implications for clinical practice</h3><p></p><ul><li><span>•</span><span><p>Nearly half (47.6%) of 166 osteopaths reported using pain scales ‘frequently’ or ‘always’, but there was a less frequent use of PROMs other than pain scales (14.2%), except for third party paying patients (57.4%).</p></span></li><li><span>•</span><span><p>The majority of osteopaths agreed that PROMs were important for tracking clinical improvement in patients (61%), although only 48% agreed that PROMs were important in osteopathic practice.</p></span></li><li><span>•</span><span><p>The greatest barrier identified by osteopaths to using PROMs was the burden on consultation time and most common enabler was the requirement of PROMs by third party payers.</p></span></li></ul></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51068,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746068922000669\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746068922000669","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
The utilisation and attitudes to patient reported outcome measures by Australian osteopaths: A cross sectional study
Objective
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide information on patients’ views of their symptoms, functional status, health related quality of life and are an important part of evidence-informed practice and patient-centred care. The utilisation of and attitudes to PROMs by Australian osteopaths is unknown.
Methods
An online survey was designed to investigate the self-reported utilisation of PROMs by Australian osteopaths, including the frequency of use, the types of PROMs used, the features of PROMs are most useful, the attitudes towards PROMs, and the barriers and enablers for use of PROMs. The survey was a 14-item questionnaire that used a 5-point Likert scale or required free text answers. The effect of gender and years in practice was analysed using Mann-Whitney U tests. Effect sizes were calculated where possible.
Results
166 (male = 69, female = 97) osteopaths participated in the survey. Nearly half (47.6%) reported that pain scales were used ‘frequently’ or ‘always’, but there was less frequent use of PROMs other than pain scales (14.2%), except for third party paying patients (57.4%). Australian osteopaths reported using PROMs most frequently for patients with neck pain (31%) and low back pain (29%). The majority agreed PROMs were important for tracking improvement in patients (61%). The greatest barrier identified by osteopaths was the burden on consultation time.
Conclusion
This study highlighted only the minority of Australian osteopaths use PROMs frequently and consider them important. Professional organisations should consider professional development aimed to upskill and support practitioners in the efficient use of PROMs in practice.
Implications for clinical practice
•
Nearly half (47.6%) of 166 osteopaths reported using pain scales ‘frequently’ or ‘always’, but there was a less frequent use of PROMs other than pain scales (14.2%), except for third party paying patients (57.4%).
•
The majority of osteopaths agreed that PROMs were important for tracking clinical improvement in patients (61%), although only 48% agreed that PROMs were important in osteopathic practice.
•
The greatest barrier identified by osteopaths to using PROMs was the burden on consultation time and most common enabler was the requirement of PROMs by third party payers.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine is a peer-reviewed journal that provides for the publication of high quality research articles and review papers that are as broad as the many disciplines that influence and underpin the principles and practice of osteopathic medicine. Particular emphasis is given to basic science research, clinical epidemiology and health social science in relation to osteopathy and neuromusculoskeletal medicine.
The Editorial Board encourages submission of articles based on both quantitative and qualitative research designs. The Editorial Board also aims to provide a forum for discourse and debate on any aspect of osteopathy and neuromusculoskeletal medicine with the aim of critically evaluating existing practices in regard to the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with neuromusculoskeletal disorders and somatic dysfunction. All manuscripts submitted to the IJOM are subject to a blinded review process. The categories currently available for publication include reports of original research, review papers, commentaries and articles related to clinical practice, including case reports. Further details can be found in the IJOM Instructions for Authors. Manuscripts are accepted for publication with the understanding that no substantial part has been, or will be published elsewhere.