Clinical assessment and patient-reported outcome measures in low-back pain – a survey among primary health care physiotherapists

Figures & data

Table 1. Respondents’ demographic characteristics (n = 1217).

Characteristics	n	%
Participants
Women/Men	811/397	67/32
Age
20–35 years	371	31.1
36–50 years	379	31.8
51–65 years	425	35.7
>65 years	16	1.3
Education level
Lower level degrees (2.5 years)	186	15.6
Bachelor’s degree	731	61.3
Master’s degree	259	21.7
PhD	16	1.3
Years of working experience (PT)
<5 years	262	21.7
6–10 years	166	13.8
11–15 years	139	11.5
16–20 years	142	11.8
>20 years	498	41.3
Current work line
Public health care center	512	42.6
Private health care center	134	11.1
Private clinic	469	39.0
Other (occupational health service, municipality health care, specialist clinic)	87	7.2

Figure 1. The respondents’ use of various clinical tests. The blue vertical pillars present “always, very often, and often” in percentage of use (0–100%).

Figure 2. Respondents’ use of PROMs included in the survey. The blue vertical pillars present “always, very often, and often” in percentage of use (0–100%).

Table 2. Advantages using PROMs (response rate n = 529).

Categories	Sub categories
Clinical reasoning process	• Assess and diagnose  • Capture psychosocial aspects  • Form a treatment plan and set goals  • Follow-up and evaluate treatment
Quality of the assessment	• To achieve a clear structure  • To assure the quality of the assessment
The patients’ voice influences assessment	• To compare the clinical findings with the patient’s reported problems  • To capture the patient’s experience
To educate and motivate	• To educate the patient  • To increase the patient’s motivation and participation
Communication with health professionals	• For report and referral to other care-givers

Table 3. Categories and sub categories of regarding barriers of using PROMs (response rate n = 824).

Categories	Sub-categories
Lack of time and knowledge	• Lack of time (n = 434)  • Lack of knowledge and habit to use PROMs (n = 224)  • No additional benefit (n = 166)  • Forget to use/no reason for not using PROMs (n = 32)
Administrative aspects	• Limits in access, transfer to journal and archiving (n = 58)  • Routines at the work place (n = 23)  • Colleges and employers do not understand (n = 8)
Interaction between physiotherapist and patient	• Language and cultural barriers (n = 40)  • Difficult to understand for the patient (n = 23)  • Contradicts the patient’s expectations (n = 14)  • Disturbs the therapeutic alliance (n = 7)
Applicability and validity of PROMs	• Lack of suitable PROMs (n = 52)  • PROMs are not reliable or valid (n = 6)