"Doctor-Led, Patient-Centered": A Mixed-Method Research Comparing Patients' and Doctors' Treatment Outcome Choices for Chronic Low Back Pain.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Patient preference and adherence Pub Date : 2025-02-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/PPA.S501409
Xia Li, Ying Zhang, Zhuxin Mao, Qianji Chen, Xiaoxue Lan, Hong Chen, Ya-Nan Sun, Chang-He Yu, Xi-You Wang
{"title":"\"Doctor-Led, Patient-Centered\": A Mixed-Method Research Comparing Patients' and Doctors' Treatment Outcome Choices for Chronic Low Back Pain.","authors":"Xia Li, Ying Zhang, Zhuxin Mao, Qianji Chen, Xiaoxue Lan, Hong Chen, Ya-Nan Sun, Chang-He Yu, Xi-You Wang","doi":"10.2147/PPA.S501409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic low back pain (CLBP) significantly impacts quality of life. Treatment outcomes are influenced by the perspectives and expectations of both patients and doctors, making it crucial to understand these views to optimize care and satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to analyze the alignment and differences in doctors' and patients' perceptions of treatment outcomes and explore the implications of these differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was used, involving a questionnaire survey and two focus groups. The study was conducted at Dongzhimen Hospital from August 2020 to January 2021. Participants, including patients with any type of CLBP (age≥18) and doctors with at least one year of experience, were selected via purposive sampling. Quantitative data, analyzed with SPSS, were summarized as percentages for categorical variables and as means with standard deviations or medians for continuous variables. Differences between variables were assessed using the Chi-square and nonparametric rank sum tests. Focus group discussions were analyzed thematically to explore differing perspectives on treatment outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A questionnaire gathered perspectives from 30 patients (mean age 45±11.74 years) and 26 doctors (mean age 41.7±6.7 years). The results informed the development of specific questions for focus group interviews with 8 patients and 8 doctors. Quantitative results revealed that pain/discomfort and activities of daily living were equally important to both groups. However, many outcomes were valued differently. Five themes emerged: 1) Doctors' focus on treating the whole person; 2) Patients' emphasis on cost-effectiveness/satisfaction; 3) Patients' prioritization of body image and physical function; 4) Shared priority beyond pain; 5) Shared concerns on adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights the importance of aligning treatment expectations between patients and doctors to improve satisfaction and outcomes in CLBP management. Enhanced communication strategies and shared decision-making are recommended to bridge these gaps.</p>","PeriodicalId":19972,"journal":{"name":"Patient preference and adherence","volume":"19 ","pages":"433-450"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11878113/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient preference and adherence","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S501409","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) significantly impacts quality of life. Treatment outcomes are influenced by the perspectives and expectations of both patients and doctors, making it crucial to understand these views to optimize care and satisfaction.

Purpose: This study aims to analyze the alignment and differences in doctors' and patients' perceptions of treatment outcomes and explore the implications of these differences.

Methods: An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was used, involving a questionnaire survey and two focus groups. The study was conducted at Dongzhimen Hospital from August 2020 to January 2021. Participants, including patients with any type of CLBP (age≥18) and doctors with at least one year of experience, were selected via purposive sampling. Quantitative data, analyzed with SPSS, were summarized as percentages for categorical variables and as means with standard deviations or medians for continuous variables. Differences between variables were assessed using the Chi-square and nonparametric rank sum tests. Focus group discussions were analyzed thematically to explore differing perspectives on treatment outcomes.

Results: A questionnaire gathered perspectives from 30 patients (mean age 45±11.74 years) and 26 doctors (mean age 41.7±6.7 years). The results informed the development of specific questions for focus group interviews with 8 patients and 8 doctors. Quantitative results revealed that pain/discomfort and activities of daily living were equally important to both groups. However, many outcomes were valued differently. Five themes emerged: 1) Doctors' focus on treating the whole person; 2) Patients' emphasis on cost-effectiveness/satisfaction; 3) Patients' prioritization of body image and physical function; 4) Shared priority beyond pain; 5) Shared concerns on adverse events.

Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of aligning treatment expectations between patients and doctors to improve satisfaction and outcomes in CLBP management. Enhanced communication strategies and shared decision-making are recommended to bridge these gaps.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Patient preference and adherence
Patient preference and adherence MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
354
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Patient Preference and Adherence is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal that focuses on the growing importance of patient preference and adherence throughout the therapeutic continuum. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of reviews, original research, modeling and clinical studies across all therapeutic areas. Patient satisfaction, acceptability, quality of life, compliance, persistence and their role in developing new therapeutic modalities and compounds to optimize clinical outcomes for existing disease states are major areas of interest for the journal. As of 1st April 2019, Patient Preference and Adherence will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication.
期刊最新文献
"Doctor-Led, Patient-Centered": A Mixed-Method Research Comparing Patients' and Doctors' Treatment Outcome Choices for Chronic Low Back Pain. Impact of Antepartum Case-Based Learning on Glycemic Control and Self-Management Skills in Women with Gestational Diabetes: A Patient-Centered Non-Parallel Quasi-Experimental Study. Implementing a Care Model for Bedridden Stroke Survivors: A Qualitative Study in Northeastern Thailand [Letter]. Patient Experiences and Preferences Regarding Medication Cost Discussions Among Heart Failure Patients in Singapore: A Qualitative Survey. Development and Validation of Facial Line Distress Scale-Glabellar Lines (FINE-GL).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1