“Take me seriously and do something!” - a qualitative study exploring patients’ perceptions and expectations of an upcoming orthopaedic consultation

Abstract Background Patients’ perceptions of care is an important factor in evaluation of health care, in quality assessment, and in improvement efforts. Expectations of assessments or procedures such as surgery have been found to be related to perceptions of outcome as well as satisfaction, and are therefore of interest to both clinicians and researchers. Increased understanding of these patient views is important so that orthopaedic assessments, regardless of who performs them, can be further developed and patient-centred to better meet patients’ needs. The purpose of this study was therefore to explore patients’ perceptions and expectations of an upcoming orthopaedic consultation. Methods This was an explorative qualitative study with an inductive approach. Thirteen patients who were referred for orthopaedic consultation were included using a purposeful sampling strategy. Patients participated in individual, semi-structured interviews that were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed with qualitative content analysis. Results The participants’ expressed perceptions and expectations of the upcoming orthopaedic surgeon consultation were classified into 5 categories: Hoping for action, Meeting an expert, A respectful meeting, Participating in the consultation, and A belief that hard facts make evidence. Across the categories, an overarching theme was formulated: Take me seriously and do something! The participants emphasised a desire to be taken seriously and for something to happen, both during the consultation itself and as a result of the orthopaedic consultation. They described a trust in the expertise of the orthopaedic surgeon and stressed the importance of the surgeon’s attitude, but still expected to participate in the consultation as well as in the decision-making process. Conclusions The study findings illuminate aspects that are important for patients in an orthopaedic consultation. The descriptions of patients’ perceptions and expectations can serve to improve patient–clinician relationships as well as to inform the development of new models of care, and a greater understanding of these aspects may improve the patient experience

Digital physiotherapy assessment vs conventional face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of patients with musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review.

BackgroundThis systematic review aimed to assess the certainty of evidence for digital versus conventional, face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders, concerning validity, reliability, feasibility, patient satisfaction, physiotherapist satisfaction, adverse events, clinical management, and cost-effectiveness.MethodsEligibility criteria: Original studies comparing digital physiotherapy assessment with face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders. Systematic database searches were performed in May 2021, and updated in May 2022, in Medline, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, AMED, and PEDro. Risk of bias and applicability of the included studies were appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool and the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies tool. Included studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was evaluated for each assessment component using GRADE.ResultsTen repeated-measures studies were included, involving 193 participants aged 23-62 years. Reported validity of digital physiotherapy assessment ranged from moderate/acceptable to almost perfect/excellent for clinical tests, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), pain, neck posture, and management decisions. Reported validity for assessing spinal posture varied and was for clinical observations unacceptably low. Reported validity and reliability for digital diagnosis ranged from moderate to almost perfect for exact+similar agreement, but was considerably lower when constrained to exact agreement. Reported reliability was excellent for digital assessment of clinical tests, range of motion, pain, neck posture, and PROMs. Certainty of evidence varied from very low to high, with PROMs and pain assessment obtaining the highest certainty. Patients were satisfied with their digital assessment, but did not perceive it as good as face-to-face assessment.DiscussionEvidence ranging from very low to high certainty suggests that validity and reliability of digital physiotherapy assessments are acceptable to excellent for several assessment components. Digital physiotherapy assessment may be a viable alternative to face-to-face assessment for patients who are likely to benefit from the accessibility and convenience of remote access.Trial registrationThe review was registered in the PROSPERO database, CRD42021277624

Flow diagram of literature searches and search results.

Flow diagram of literature searches and search results.</p

PRISMA checklist.

BackgroundThis systematic review aimed to assess the certainty of evidence for digital versus conventional, face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders, concerning validity, reliability, feasibility, patient satisfaction, physiotherapist satisfaction, adverse events, clinical management, and cost-effectiveness.MethodsEligibility criteria: Original studies comparing digital physiotherapy assessment with face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders. Systematic database searches were performed in May 2021, and updated in May 2022, in Medline, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, AMED, and PEDro. Risk of bias and applicability of the included studies were appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool and the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies tool. Included studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was evaluated for each assessment component using GRADE.ResultsTen repeated-measures studies were included, involving 193 participants aged 23–62 years. Reported validity of digital physiotherapy assessment ranged from moderate/acceptable to almost perfect/excellent for clinical tests, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), pain, neck posture, and management decisions. Reported validity for assessing spinal posture varied and was for clinical observations unacceptably low. Reported validity and reliability for digital diagnosis ranged from moderate to almost perfect for exact+similar agreement, but was considerably lower when constrained to exact agreement. Reported reliability was excellent for digital assessment of clinical tests, range of motion, pain, neck posture, and PROMs. Certainty of evidence varied from very low to high, with PROMs and pain assessment obtaining the highest certainty. Patients were satisfied with their digital assessment, but did not perceive it as good as face-to-face assessment.DiscussionEvidence ranging from very low to high certainty suggests that validity and reliability of digital physiotherapy assessments are acceptable to excellent for several assessment components. Digital physiotherapy assessment may be a viable alternative to face-to-face assessment for patients who are likely to benefit from the accessibility and convenience of remote access.Trial registrationThe review was registered in the PROSPERO database, CRD42021277624.</div

pone.0283013.t001 - Digital physiotherapy assessment vs conventional face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of patients with musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review

pone.0283013.t001 - Digital physiotherapy assessment vs conventional face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of patients with musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review</p

Cut-offs for strength of agreement.

BackgroundThis systematic review aimed to assess the certainty of evidence for digital versus conventional, face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders, concerning validity, reliability, feasibility, patient satisfaction, physiotherapist satisfaction, adverse events, clinical management, and cost-effectiveness.MethodsEligibility criteria: Original studies comparing digital physiotherapy assessment with face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders. Systematic database searches were performed in May 2021, and updated in May 2022, in Medline, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, AMED, and PEDro. Risk of bias and applicability of the included studies were appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool and the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies tool. Included studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was evaluated for each assessment component using GRADE.ResultsTen repeated-measures studies were included, involving 193 participants aged 23–62 years. Reported validity of digital physiotherapy assessment ranged from moderate/acceptable to almost perfect/excellent for clinical tests, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), pain, neck posture, and management decisions. Reported validity for assessing spinal posture varied and was for clinical observations unacceptably low. Reported validity and reliability for digital diagnosis ranged from moderate to almost perfect for exact+similar agreement, but was considerably lower when constrained to exact agreement. Reported reliability was excellent for digital assessment of clinical tests, range of motion, pain, neck posture, and PROMs. Certainty of evidence varied from very low to high, with PROMs and pain assessment obtaining the highest certainty. Patients were satisfied with their digital assessment, but did not perceive it as good as face-to-face assessment.DiscussionEvidence ranging from very low to high certainty suggests that validity and reliability of digital physiotherapy assessments are acceptable to excellent for several assessment components. Digital physiotherapy assessment may be a viable alternative to face-to-face assessment for patients who are likely to benefit from the accessibility and convenience of remote access.Trial registrationThe review was registered in the PROSPERO database, CRD42021277624.</div

List of excluded studies.

BackgroundThis systematic review aimed to assess the certainty of evidence for digital versus conventional, face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders, concerning validity, reliability, feasibility, patient satisfaction, physiotherapist satisfaction, adverse events, clinical management, and cost-effectiveness.MethodsEligibility criteria: Original studies comparing digital physiotherapy assessment with face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders. Systematic database searches were performed in May 2021, and updated in May 2022, in Medline, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, AMED, and PEDro. Risk of bias and applicability of the included studies were appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool and the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies tool. Included studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was evaluated for each assessment component using GRADE.ResultsTen repeated-measures studies were included, involving 193 participants aged 23–62 years. Reported validity of digital physiotherapy assessment ranged from moderate/acceptable to almost perfect/excellent for clinical tests, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), pain, neck posture, and management decisions. Reported validity for assessing spinal posture varied and was for clinical observations unacceptably low. Reported validity and reliability for digital diagnosis ranged from moderate to almost perfect for exact+similar agreement, but was considerably lower when constrained to exact agreement. Reported reliability was excellent for digital assessment of clinical tests, range of motion, pain, neck posture, and PROMs. Certainty of evidence varied from very low to high, with PROMs and pain assessment obtaining the highest certainty. Patients were satisfied with their digital assessment, but did not perceive it as good as face-to-face assessment.DiscussionEvidence ranging from very low to high certainty suggests that validity and reliability of digital physiotherapy assessments are acceptable to excellent for several assessment components. Digital physiotherapy assessment may be a viable alternative to face-to-face assessment for patients who are likely to benefit from the accessibility and convenience of remote access.Trial registrationThe review was registered in the PROSPERO database, CRD42021277624.</div

Mean values of reported patient satisfaction (VAS 0–100).

Mean values of reported patient satisfaction (VAS 0–100).</p

Outcome tables.

BackgroundThis systematic review aimed to assess the certainty of evidence for digital versus conventional, face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders, concerning validity, reliability, feasibility, patient satisfaction, physiotherapist satisfaction, adverse events, clinical management, and cost-effectiveness.MethodsEligibility criteria: Original studies comparing digital physiotherapy assessment with face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of musculoskeletal disorders. Systematic database searches were performed in May 2021, and updated in May 2022, in Medline, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, AMED, and PEDro. Risk of bias and applicability of the included studies were appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool and the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies tool. Included studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was evaluated for each assessment component using GRADE.ResultsTen repeated-measures studies were included, involving 193 participants aged 23–62 years. Reported validity of digital physiotherapy assessment ranged from moderate/acceptable to almost perfect/excellent for clinical tests, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), pain, neck posture, and management decisions. Reported validity for assessing spinal posture varied and was for clinical observations unacceptably low. Reported validity and reliability for digital diagnosis ranged from moderate to almost perfect for exact+similar agreement, but was considerably lower when constrained to exact agreement. Reported reliability was excellent for digital assessment of clinical tests, range of motion, pain, neck posture, and PROMs. Certainty of evidence varied from very low to high, with PROMs and pain assessment obtaining the highest certainty. Patients were satisfied with their digital assessment, but did not perceive it as good as face-to-face assessment.DiscussionEvidence ranging from very low to high certainty suggests that validity and reliability of digital physiotherapy assessments are acceptable to excellent for several assessment components. Digital physiotherapy assessment may be a viable alternative to face-to-face assessment for patients who are likely to benefit from the accessibility and convenience of remote access.Trial registrationThe review was registered in the PROSPERO database, CRD42021277624.</div