Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Volume 31, Issue 5 , Pages 355-375, June 2008

Measures in Chiropractic Research: Choosing Patient-Based Outcome Assessments

  • Raheleh Khorsan, MA

      Affiliations

    • Research Associate, Integrative Medicine and Military Medical Research, Samueli Institute, Corona del Mar, Calif
    • Corresponding Author InformationSubmit requests for reprints to: Raheleh Khorsan, MA, Research Associate, Integrative Medicine, Samueli Institute, 2101 East Coast Hwy, Suite 300, Corona del Mar, CA 92625.
  • ,
  • Ian D. Coulter, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Professor, University of California, Los Angeles, Calif
    • Senior Health Scientist, RAND/Samueli Chair for Integrative Medicine and Senior Health Policy Researcher, RAND, Santa Monica, Calif
    • Adjunct Research Faculty, Southern California University of Health Sciences, Whittier, Calif
  • ,
  • Cheryl Hawk, DC, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Vice President of Research and Scholarship, Cleveland Chiropractic College, Kansas City, Mo and Los Angeles, Calif
  • ,
  • Christine Goertz Choate, DC, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Executive Director, Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Davenport, Iowa

Received 26 September 2007; received in revised form 15 January 2008; accepted 24 February 2008.

Abstract 

Objective

Outcome assessment normally used in research can support the therapeutic process by tracking patient symptoms and function and offering a common language to clinicians and researchers. This study's objectives were to (1) identify patient-based outcomes assessments used in published chiropractic studies, (2) describe a framework for identifying appropriate sets of measures, and (3) address the challenges associated with these measures relevant to chiropractic.

Methods

This literature review identified and evaluated the most commonly used to outcome measures in chiropractic research. Instruments were evaluated in terms of feasibility, practicality, economy, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to clinical change. A search of PubMed and Index to Chiropractic Literature (from inception to June 2006) was performed.

Results

A total of 1166 citations were identified. Of these, 629 were selected as relevant. The most common patient-based outcomes assessments instruments identified were the Oswestry Pain/Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and Short Form 36.

Conclusions

The integration of outcome measures is consistent with current national initiatives to enhance health care quality through performance measurement and can also be used to further the field of chiropractic health care research. Outcome measures are both a research tool and a means by which providers can consistently measure health care quality. Based upon this review, there is a wide range of outcome measures available for use in chiropractic care. Those most commonly cited in the literature are the numeric rating scale, Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Pain/Disability Index, Roland-Morris Low Back Pain and Disability Questionnaire, and Short Form 36.

Key Indexing Terms: Review, Pain Measurement, Outcome Measures, Chiropractic, Manipulation, Spinal

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 15.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 No conflict of interest exists for any of the authors of this study. The views, opinions and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision unless so designated by others.

 This work is supported by the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command under Award No. W81XWH-06-1-0279 through the Samueli Institute.

PII: S0161-4754(08)00111-5

doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.04.007

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Volume 31, Issue 5 , Pages 355-375, June 2008