Volume 31, Issue 8 , Pages 602-610, October 2008
A Pilot Mixed Methods Study of Patient Satisfaction With Chiropractic Care for Back Pain
Abstract
Objective
Patient satisfaction is important to payers, clinicians, and patients. The concept of satisfaction is multifactorial and measurement is challenging. Our objective was to explore the use of a mixed-methods design to examine patient satisfaction with chiropractic care for low back pain.
Methods
Patients were treated 3 times per week for 3 weeks. Outcomes were collected at week 3 and week 4. Qualitative interviews were conducted by the treating clinician and a nontreating staff member. Outcome measures were the Roland Morris Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, the visual analog scale for pain, and the Patient Satisfaction Scale. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and analyzed for themes and constructs of satisfaction. We compared qualitative interview data with quantitative outcomes, and qualitative data from 2 different interviewers.
Results
All patients reported high levels of satisfaction. Clinical outcomes were unremarkable with little change noted on visual analog scale and Roland Morris Back Pain Disability Questionnaire scores. We categorized patient comments into the same constructs of satisfaction as those identified for the Patient Satisfaction Scale: Information, Effectiveness, and Caring. An additional construct (Quality of Care) and additional subcategories were identified. Satisfaction with care is not explained by outcome alone. The qualitative data collected from 2 different interviewers had few differences.
Conclusion
The results of this study suggest that it is feasible to use a mixed-methods design to examine patient satisfaction. We were able to refine data collection and analysis procedures for the outcome measures and qualitative interview data. We identified limitations and offer recommendations for the next step: the implementation of a larger study.
Key Indexing Terms: Chiropractic, Manipulation, Spinal, Back Pain, Patient Satisfaction
To access this article, please choose from the options below
This investigation was conducted in a facility constructed with support from Research Facilities Improvement Grant Number C06 RR15433 from the National Center for Research Resources, National Institute of Health. This project was made possible by Grant Number K01-AT000977 from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NCCAM, or the National Institutes of Health.
PII: S0161-4754(08)00244-3
doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.09.010
© 2008 National University of Health Sciences. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Volume 31, Issue 8 , Pages 602-610, October 2008
