ArticleChiropractic & manual therapies2026
Chiropractor perspectives on the use of patient reported outcome measures: a survey of Veterans Health Administration chiropractors.
Article in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient reported outcome measure (PROM) use is a marker of high-quality chiropractic care. Limited information exists regarding use of PROMs by United States chiropractors, especially within integrated health systems like the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that prioritize high-quality, data-driven performance monitoring. This study aimed to understand VHA chiropractor perspectives on PROM use, including specific measures, administration characteristics (initial and follow-up timing), workflow, and perceived utility.
methodsA national electronic survey of VHA chiropractors was conducted using REDCap from May 7 to 28, 2024. Survey items covered frequency of use by region of chief concern, administration during initial versus follow-up visits, perceived usefulness for serial assessment, and perceived patient and clinician benefit or burden. Respondents also listed frequently used PROMs and provided details on administration workflow. Descriptive statistics were summarized. The relationship between self-reported PROM use at initial and follow-up visits was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (α = 0.05). Self-reported PROM use frequency across chief concerns (low back pain, neck pain, and all other chief complaints) was compared using a Kruskal-Wallis H Test (α = 0.05) and Bonferroni-corrected Dunn’s post-hoc tests.
resultsThe survey achieved a response rate of 51.8% (189/365). The PROMs most frequently listed assessed disability, followed by pain intensity and interference. PROM administration was most often completed by the chiropractor (76.7%) using paper forms collected at the point of care (51.7%). Respondents reported a greater (r = 0.640, p < 0.001) percentage of patients over the past 12 months where they used PROMs at initial visits (median = 95.0%) compared to follow-up visits (median = 74.5%). A significant difference in PROM frequency was observed across chief complaint categories (χ² = 41.814, df = 2, p < 0.001) for both low back pain (r = 0.258, p < 0.001) and neck pain (r = 0.203, p < 0.001) compared to all other chief complaints. PROMs were overwhelmingly viewed as highly beneficial for individual patient management despite any perceived administrative burden.
conclusionsWe identified key themes related to VHA chiropractor perspectives on PROMs. VHA chiropractors show a commitment to PROM use, especially for spinal pain presentations. Existing workflows often rely on manual, paper-based, provider-driven methods. Addressing barriers to meaningful use is critical to optimally implement PROMs in VHA chiropractic practice.
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.