Observational studyManual therapy2014
Opening clinical encounters in an adult musculoskeletal setting.
Observational study in Manual therapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- A critical review of the role of manual therapy in the treatment of individuals with low back pain.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2024Review
- Patient-centered consultations for persons with musculoskeletal conditions.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2022Review
- Beliefs and Use of Palpatory Findings in Osteopathic Clinical Practice: A Qualitative Descriptive Study among Italian Osteopaths.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Delivering remote consultations: Talking the talk.Musculoskeletal science & practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Effective communication between healthcare professionals and their patients is crucial for successful consultations, and can profoundly affect patients' adherence to treatment. Despite this evidence, communication within the physiotherapy profession is still underexplored, in particular, how 'best' to open clinical encounters. This study explores the issue by seeking the preferences of physiotherapists for opening encounters in the adult musculoskeletal outpatient setting. Initially, 42 consultations and 17 first follow-up encounters were observed between qualified physiotherapists and patients with back pain. These encounters were audio-recorded, analysed and used to develop a questionnaire to determine clinicians' preferences for opening encounters. From these findings, a synopsis of the questionnaire was posted on the four most-relevant professional networks of the national, interactive Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (iCSP) website, to canvass opinion more widely. Among the 43 physiotherapists who responded, the preferred 'key clinical question' for an initial encounter was: "Do you want to just tell me a little bit about [your 'problem presentation'] first of all?"; and for follow-up encounters: 'How have you been since I last saw you?' These results provide an important and novel contribution to the profession, as debate on this issue has not previously been published. Although the sample size in this study is small, the aim of this paper is to generate reflection and debate among clinicians on their preferences for opening patient encounters and optimising the non-specific treatment effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.