English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Patient-centered care models allow for the ability to tailor treatment to outcomes of importance to patients. Objective The purposes of this study were to (1) define patient subgroups based on outcomes of importance; (2) determine whether patient subgroups based on outcomes of importance differed in demographic, clinical, and psychological measures; and (3) determine whether outcome domain subgroups differed in treatment responses. Design This was a prospective, longitudinal observational study. Methods This was a secondary analysis of the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome study. Patients in the development phase completed the Patient Centered Outcome Questionnaire (PCOQ) and questionnaires related to negative mood, fear avoidance, and positive coping, as well as region-specific questionnaires. Patients in the validation cohort completed the PCOQ, measures of treatment satisfaction and region-specific questionnaires at 4 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. A hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis identified profiles based on importance outcomes as determined by the PCOQ. Analysis of variance and chi-squared assessed baseline subgroup differences in demographics, psychological factors, and clinical outcomes. Repeated-measure analysis of variance considered subgroup differences in outcomes longitudinally. Results Cluster analysis identified 3 subgroups: (1) “Multiple Outcome Domains Important” subgroup characterized by high importance attached to improvement in all domains, (2) “Pain and Function Outcomes Important” subgroup characterized by high importance attached to improvement in pain and interference, and (3) “Pain Important” subgroup characterized by greatest importance attached to improvement in pain. Limitations Our sample included patients from outpatient physical therapy and may not be representative of patients in other settings. Conclusion Patients can be characterized by the importance attached to improvement in outcome domains. The identified subgroups differed in baseline measures as well as response to treatment.

Importance of Outcome Domain for Patients With Musculoskeletal Pain: Characterizing Subgroups and Their Response to Treatment