Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 4/2014

01-04-2014 | Original Article

“I know it’s changed”: a mixed-methods study of the meaning of Global Perceived Effect in chronic neck pain patients

Authors: Roni Evans, Gert Bronfort, Michele Maiers, Craig Schulz, Jan Hartvigsen

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 4/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Global Perceived Effect (GPE) is a commonly used outcome measure for musculoskeletal conditions like neck pain; however, little is known regarding the factors patients take into account when determining their GPE. The overall objective of this work was to describe the thematic variables, which comprise the GPE from the patient’s perspective.

Methods

This was a mixed-methods study in which qualitative data were collected within a randomized clinical trial assessing exercise and manual therapy for chronic neck pain. A consecutive sample of 106 patients who completed the trial intervention took part in semi-structured interviews querying the meaning of GPE. Quantitative measures were collected through self-report questionnaires. Interview transcripts were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes, which were then quantified to assess potential relationships.

Results

A model of GPE for chronic neck pain emerged comprised of five main themes: neck symptoms (cited by 85 %), biomechanical performance (38 %), activities of daily living (31 %), self-efficacy (10 %), and need for other treatment (6 %). Influencing factors included those contributing to GPE: treatment process (64 %), biomechanical performance (51 %), self-efficacy (16 %), and the nature of the condition (8 %). Factors, which detracted from GPE or prevented recovery included perceived nature of condition (58 %), required daily activities (10 %), lack of diagnosis (5 %), and history of failed treatment (5 %).

Conclusions

GPE appears to capture chronic neck pain patient perceptions of change in different domains important to their individual pain experiences that may not be captured by other outcome instruments. Thus, GPE is a suitable patient-oriented outcome that can complement other measures in research and clinical practice. Importantly, many chronic neck pain patients believe it impossible to reach complete recovery because of a perceived intractable aspect of their neck condition; this has important implications regarding long-term disability and health-seeking behaviors.
Literature
1.
Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L (1998) The Saskatchewan health and back pain survey. The prevalence of neck pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults. Spine 23:1689–1698PubMedCrossRef
2.
Fejer R, Kyvik KO, Hartvigsen J (2005) The prevalence of neck pain in the world population: a systematic critical review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15:834–848PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
3.
Hogg-Johnson S, van der Velde GM, Carroll LJ et al (2008) The burden and determinants of neck pain in the general population: results of the bone and joint decade 2000–2010 task force on neck pain and its associated disorders. Spine 33:S39–S51PubMedCrossRef
4.
Guzman J, Haldeman S, Carroll LJ et al (2008) Clinical practice implications of the bone and joint decade 2000–2010 task force on neck pain and its associated disorders: from concepts and findings to recommendations. Spine 33:S199–S213PubMedCrossRef
5.
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT et al (2005) Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 113:9–19PubMedCrossRef
6.
Fischer D, Stewart AL, Bloch DA, Lorig K, Laurent D, Holman H (1999) Capturing the patient’s view of change as a clinical outcome measure. JAMA 282:1157–1162PubMedCrossRef
7.
Hush JM, Kamper SJ, Stanton TR, Ostelo R, Refshauge KM (2012) Standardized measurement of recovery from nonspecific back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 93:849–855PubMedCrossRef
8.
Hush JM, Refshauge K, Sullivan G, De Souza L, Maher CG, McAuley JH (2009) Recovery: what does this mean to patients with low back pain? Arthr Rheum 61:124–131CrossRef
9.
Carroll LJ, Hogg-Johnson S, van der Velde GM et al (2008) Course and prognostic factors for neck pain in the general population: results of the bone and joint decade 2000–2010 task force on neck pain and its associated disorders. Spine 33:S75–S82PubMedCrossRef
10.
Creswell JW, Plano-Clark VL (2011) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
11.
Evans R, Bronfort G, Schulz C et al (2012) Supervised exercise with and without spinal manipulation perform similarly and better than home exercise for chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:903–914CrossRef
12.
Spitzer WO, Skovron ML, Salmi LR et al (1995) Scientific monograph of the Quebec task force on whiplash-associated disorders: redefining “whiplash” and its management. Spine 20:S1–S73CrossRef
13.
Guzman J, Hurwitz EL, Carroll LJ et al (2008) A new conceptual model of neck pain: linking onset, course, and care: the bone and joint decade 2000–2010 task force on neck pain and its associated disorders. Spine 3:S14–S23CrossRef
14.
Creswell JW (2013) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications, Los Angeles
15.
Evans RL, Maiers MJ, Bronfort G (2003) What do patients think? Results of a mixed methods pilot study assessing sciatica patients’ interpretations of satisfaction and improvement. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 26:502–509PubMedCrossRef
16.
Deyo RA, Walsh NE, Martin DC, Schoenfeld LS, Ramamurthy S (1990) A controlled trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and exercise for chronic low back pain. N Engl J Med 322:1627–1634PubMedCrossRef
17.
Hansen FR, Bendix T, Skov P et al (1993) Intensive, dynamic back-muscle exercises, conventional physiotherapy, or placebo-control treatment of low-back pain. A randomized, observer-blind trial. Spine 18:98–108PubMedCrossRef
18.
Newman I, Benz CR (1998) Qualitative–quantitative research methodology: exploring the interactive continuum. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale
19.
Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications Inc, Beverly Hills
20.
Pope C, Mays N (1995) Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 311:42–45PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
21.
Bauer M (2000) Classical content analysis: a review. In: Bauer M, Gaskell G (eds) Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: a practical handbook for social research. Sage Publications Inc, London, pp 131–151
22.
Haanstra TM, Hanson L, Evans R et al (2013) How do low back pain patients conceptualize their expectations regarding treatment? Content analysis of interviews. Eur Spine J 22:1986–1995PubMedCrossRef
23.
Tesch R (1990) Qualitative research: analysis types and software tools. Falmer, New York
24.
Verbeek J, Sengers MJ, Riemens L, Haafkens J (2004) Patient expectations of treatment for back pain: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies. Spine 29:2309–2318PubMedCrossRef
25.
26.
Harding G, Parsons S, Rahman A, Underwood M (2005) “It struck me that they didn’t understand pain”: the specialist pain clinic experience of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Arthr Rheum 53:691–696CrossRef
27.
Beaton DE, Tarasuk V, Katz JN, Wright JG, Bombardier C (2001) “Are you better?” A qualitative study of the meaning of recovery. Arthr Rheum 45:270–279CrossRef
28.
Walker MJ, Boyles RE, Young BA et al (2008) The effectiveness of manual physical therapy and exercise for mechanical neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2371–2378CrossRef
29.
Sherman KJ, Cherkin DC, Hawkes RJ, Miglioretti DL, Deyo RA (2009) Randomized trial of therapeutic massage for chronic neck pain. Clin J Pain 25:233–238PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
30.
Hurwitz EL, Carragee EJ, van der Velde G et al (2008) Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: results of the bone and joint decade 2000–2010 task force on neck pain and its associated disorders. Spine 33:S123–S152PubMedCrossRef
31.
Hoving JL, Koes BW, de Vet HC et al (2002) Manual therapy, physical therapy, or continued care by a general practitioner for patients with neck pain. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 136:713–722PubMedCrossRef
32.
Kamper SJ, Ostelo RW, Knol DL, Maher CG, de Vet HC, Hancock MJ (2010) Global perceived effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 63:760–766PubMedCrossRef
33.
Jorritsma W, Dijkstra PU, de Vries GE, Geertzen JH, Reneman MF (2012) Detecting relevant changes and responsiveness of neck pain and disability scale and neck disability index. Eur Spine J 21:2550–2557PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
“I know it’s changed”: a mixed-methods study of the meaning of Global Perceived Effect in chronic neck pain patients
Authors
Roni Evans
Gert Bronfort
Michele Maiers
Craig Schulz
Jan Hartvigsen
Publication date
01-04-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-3149-y

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

European Spine Journal 4/2014 Go to the issue

Original Article

Validity of a single-item measure to assess leg or back pain as the predominant symptom in patients with degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine

Original Article

A prospective, cluster-randomized controlled trial of exercise program to prevent low back pain in office workers

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor regarding the article “Mini-open lateral retroperitoneal lumbar spine approach using psoas muscle retraction technique. Technical report and initial results on six patients” by K. Aghayev and F.D. Vrionis: Eur Spine J, 2013. 22(9):p. 2113–9

Original Article

Dural tears in primary decompressive lumbar surgery. Is primary repair necessary for a good outcome?

Original Article

Extended indications of percutaneous endoscopic lavage and drainage for the treatment of lumbar infectious spondylitis

Original Article

Back pain in patients with degenerative spine disease and intradural spinal tumor: what to treat? when to treat?