Skip to main content

Table 3 Panel’s self-reported use, perceived clinical validity, and confidence concerning the patient-practitioner relationship (Round 1; n = 39)

From: Musculoskeletal practitioners’ perceptions of contextual factors that may influence chronic low back pain outcomes: a modified Delphi study

Rank

Sub-set

Statement

Self-reported use (%)

Valid (%)

Confidence (%)

Patient-practitioner relationship (k = 17 statements)

2

Non-verbal behaviour

Being warm, confident, friendly, relaxed, and open during the appointment

100 (n = 39)

87.2 (n = 34)

79.5 (n = 31)

2

Non-verbal behaviour

Using eye contact, smiling, caring expressions of support and interest to convey empathy and compassion

100 (n = 39)

87.2 (n = 34)

76.9 (n = 30)

2*

Using specific diagnostic approach

Providing effective reassurance via clear and understandable explanations

100 (n = 39)

87.2 (n = 34)

71.8 (n = 28)

4.5

Using specific diagnostic approach

Examining the patient fully using appropriate therapeutic ‘hands on’ touch during the clinical examination

97.4 (n = 38)

87.2 (n = 34)

76.9 (n = 30)

4.5

Person-centred care approach

Ensuring the patient feels listened to and heard (e.g., active listening or noting their responses)

97.4 (n = 38)

87.2 (n = 34)

71.8 (n = 28)

6.5

Non-verbal behaviour

Not rushing or interrupting the patient; giving them time to tell their story

94.9 (n = 37)

89.7 (n = 35)

66.7 (n = 26)

6.5

Person-centred care approach

Engaging in collaborative decision-making with patients (e.g., mutually agreed and flexible goals)

94.9 (n = 37)

82.1 (n = 32)

66.7 (n = 26)

8*

Person-centred care approach

Providing treatment choices and encouraging patients to choose option(s) if they so wish

92.3 (n = 36)

87.2 (n = 34)

69.2 (n = 27)

9.5

Non-verbal behaviour

Using affirmative head nodding, forward leaning, open body postures/orientations

89.7 (n = 35)

84.6 (n = 33)

69.2 (n = 27)

9.5

Person-centred care approach

Promoting the patient’s sense of relatedness and partnership with you (i.e., therapeutic alliance)

89.7 (n = 35)

82.1 (n = 32)

64.1 (n = 25)

12

Person-centred care approach

Using verbal expressions of empathy, support, and language reciprocity (e.g., using the patient’s words/phrasing)

84.6 (n = 33)

92.3 (n = 36)

69.2 (n = 27)

12*

Person-centred care approach

Requesting the patient’s opinions and demonstrating you trust and respect them

84.6 (n = 33)

84.6 (n = 33)

64.1 (n = 25)

12

Person-centred care approach

Individualising the interaction style according to a patient’s preference (e.g., collaborative or authoritative)

84.6 (n = 33)

87.2 (n = 34)

59.0 (n = 23)

14*

Using specific diagnostic approach

Providing a detailed, definitive, and confident diagnosis

79.5 (n = 31)

79.5 (n = 31)

56.4 (n = 22)

16

Person-centred care approach

Adopting psychosocial talk or partnership statements (e.g., we, us, together)

76.9 (n = 30)

82.1 (n = 32)

66.7 (n = 26)

16

Non-verbal behaviour

Applying different forms of touch (e.g., assistive touch, touch to prepare the patient, touch to provide information, touch to reassure the patient)

76.9 (n = 30)

76.9 (n = 30)

66.7 (n = 26)

16

Using specific diagnostic approach

Asking questions about the meaning of the patient’s symptoms (i.e., what symptoms indicate to them)

76.9 (n = 30)

82.1 (n = 32)

53.8 (n = 21)

  1. If two or more statements had equal percentages of self-reported use, then fractional ranks were computed by averaging the ordinal ranks to reflect ties. For example, three statements ranked combined “second” (i.e., (1 + 2 + 3)/3 = 2) and a rank of 4.5 indicates joint “fourth/fifth” (i.e., (4 + 5)/2 = 4.5) and so forth
  2. *This statement was revised between the two Delphi rounds