Use of Outcome Measures in Managing Neck Pain: An International Multidisciplinary Survey

Abstract

Purpose:To determine the outcome measures practice patterns in the neck pain management of various health disciplines.Methods:A survey of 381 clinicians treating patients with neck pain was conducted.Results:Respondents were more commonly male (54%) and either chiropractors (44%) or physiotherapists (32%). The survey was international (24 countries with Canada having the largest response (44%)). The most common assessment was a single-item pain assessment (numeric or visual analog) used by 75% of respondents. Respondents sometimes or routinely used the Neck Disability Index (49%), the Patient Specific Functional Scale (28%), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (32%). Work status was recorded in terms of time lost by more than 50% of respondents, but standardized measures of work limitations or functional capacity testing were rarely used. The majority of respondents never used fear of movement, psychological distress, quality of life, participation measures, or global ratings of change (< 10% routinely use). Use of impairment measurers was prevalent, but the type selected was variable. Quantitative sensory testing was used sometimes or routinely by 53% of respondents, whereas 26% never used it. Ratings of segmental joint mobility were commonly used to assess motion (44% routinely use), whereas 66% of respondents never used inclinometry. Neck muscle strength, postural alignment and upper extremity coordination were assessed sometimes or routinely by a majority of respondents (>56%). With the exception of numeric pain ratings and verbal reporting of work status, all outcomes measures were less frequently used by physicians. Years of practice did not affect practice patterns, but reimbursement did affect selection of some outcome measures.Conclusions:Few outcome measures are routinely used to assess patients with neck pain other than a numeric pain rating scale. A comparison of practice patterns to current evidence suggessts overutilization of some measures that have questionable reliability and underutilization of some with better supporting evidence. This practice analysis suggests that there is substantial need to implement more consistent outcome measurement in practice. International consensus and better clinical measurement evidence are needed to support this.

A brief 5-item version of the Neck Disability Index shows good psychometric properties

“…Such tools can be useful for prognosis, treatment planning, evaluating response to treatment, and determining suitability for discharge. In the area of neck pain specifically, a recent international survey of 381 clinicians [1] found that 75% of respondents used a pain intensity rating scale routinely, and 49% used the Neck Disability Index (NDI, [2]) sometimes or routinely. A scoping review of the scientific literature found the NDI to be the most commonly used neck-specific measure of disability [3] and a separate review of prognostic literature following whiplash injury also found that, amongst disability-centric rating scales, the NDI was the most commonly used tool to identify ‘recovery’ [4].…”

Entwicklung eines Konsenses zu wichtigen Zielgrößen in der Physiotherapie bei Nackenschmerzen – Eine Delphi-Studie

“…Eine Diskrepanz der Ergebnisse dieser Delphi-Befragung zeichnete sich im Vergleich zu anderen Umfragen aus der Praxis [5,6,24] ab. In diesen hatten die Therapeuten angegeben, vor allem klassische Zielgrößen wie Schmerzintensität, Bewegungsausmaß und Muskelkraft zu messen.…”

“…Damit leistet die Ergebnisoder Verlaufsmessung einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Qualitätssicherung in der Physiotherapie [4]. Dennoch finden Ergebnismessungen laut Umfragen nur unzureichend sowie in unterschiedlicher Art und Weise im Praxisalltag statt [5,6]. Die Gründe für die mangelnde routinemäßige Anwendung von Ergebnismessungen sind vielfältig.…”

Das Modell der gesundheitsbezogenen Lebensqualität nach Wilson und Cleary

“…Unterstellt man, dass die Therapieziele die Endpunktmessungen maßgeblich bestimmen, so wären alle beschriebenen Konstrukte der Endpunktmessungen im Bereich der "biologischen Funktionen" anzusiedeln. Diese "Denkweise" der Physiotherapie entsprichtwie in der Einleitung bereits dargestelltden Ergebnissen von Macdermid et al [22] . Diese können sich auf die Beziehung der 5 Dimensionen der Gesundheit untereinander (▶ Abb.…”