Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of panel’s agreement levels concerning the patient-practitioner relationship (Round 2; n = 23)

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

Rank

Sub-set

Statement

Mean (S.D.)

[95% CIs]

Agreement levels

Panel consensus

Percentage Disagree

Patient-practitioner relationship (k = 19 statements)

1.5

Non-verbal behaviour

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

4.74 (± 0.45)

[4.54, 4.93]

73.9% strongly agree 26.1% agree

Yes (100%)

0%

1.5

Using specific diagnostic approach

Providing a meaningful explanation of the patient’s LBP (i.e., cognitive reassurance) which is clear, understandable, and can be referred to after treatment

4.74 (± 0.45)

[4.54, 4.93]

73.9% strongly agree. 26.1% agree

Yes (100%)

0%

3.5

Person-centred care approach

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

4.70 (± 0.56)

[4.45, 4.94]

73.9% strongly agree 21.7% agree

Yes (95.7%)

4.3% (unsure)

3.5

Person-centred care approach

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

4.70 (± 0.56)

[4.45, 4.94]

73.9% strongly agree 21.7% agree

Yes (95.7%)

4.3% (unsure)

5

Non-verbal behaviour

Being warm, friendly, and relaxed during the appointment

4.65 (± 0.49)

[4.44, 4.86]

65.2% strongly agree 34.8% agree

Yes (100%)

0%

6.5*

Person-centred care approach

Compassionately expressing your understanding of how LBP affects them (e.g., 'I understand how frustrating it is not to be able to walk your dog/go dancing/garden' etc.)

4.61 (± 0.50)

[4.39, 4.82]

60.9% strongly agree 39.1% agree

Yes (100%)

0%

6.5

Person-centred care approach

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

4.61 (± 0.58)

[4.36, 4.86]

65.2% strongly agree 30.4% agree

Yes (95.7%)

4.3% (unsure)

9*

Person-centred care approach

Confirming the patient not only heard but also understood the content of your communication

4.57 (± 0.51)

[4.35, 4.78]

56.5% strongly agree 43.5% Agree

Yes (100%)

0%

9

Non-verbal behaviour

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

4.57 (± 0.59)

[4.31, 4.82]

60.9% strongly agree 34.8% agree

Yes (95.7%)

4.3% (unsure)

9

Person-centred care approach

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

4.57 (± 0.66)

[4.28, 4.85]

65.2% strongly agree 26.1% agree

Yes (91.3%)

8.7% (unsure)

12.5

Person-centred care approach

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

4.52 (± 0.51)

[4.30, 4.74]

52.2% strongly agree 47.8% agree

Yes (100%)

0%

12.5

Using specific diagnostic approach

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

4.52 (± 0.59)

[4.27, 4.78]

56.5% strongly agree 39.1% agree

Yes (95.6%)

4.3% (unsure)

12.5

Non-verbal behaviour

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

4.52 (± 0.67)

[4.23, 4.81]

60.9% strongly agree 30.4% agree

Yes (91.3%)

8.7% (unsure)

12.5*

Person-centred care approach

Demonstrating you trust or respect the patient and their opinions

4.52 (± 0.67)

[4.23, 4.81]

60.9% strongly agree 30.4% agree

Yes (91.3%)

8.7% (unsure)

15

Using specific diagnostic approach

Asking questions about the meaning of the patient’s symptoms (i.e., what symptoms indicate to them). (n = 22)a

4.50 (± 0.60)

[4.24, 4.76]

54.5% strongly agree 40.9% agree

Yes (95.4%)

4.5% (unsure)

16

Using specific diagnostic approach

Providing a confident diagnosis (e.g., providing a diagram with simple explanations and/or notes)

4.43 (± 0.73)

[4.12, 4.75]

56.5% strongly agree 30.4% agree

Yes (86.9%)

13.0% (unsure)

17*

Using specific diagnostic approach

Explaining improvement(s) can be dynamic, and their condition/symptoms may change throughout treatment

4.39 (± 0.72)

[4.08, 4.70]

52.2% strongly agree 34.8% agree

Yes (87.0%)

13.0% (unsure)

18

Person-centred care approach

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

4.22 (± 0.67)

[3.93, 4.51]

34.8% strongly agree 52.2% agree

Yes (87.0%)

13.0% (unsure)

19

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)

3.96 (± 0.83)

[3.60, 4.31]

26.1% strongly agree 47.8% agree

No (73.9%)

21.7% (unsure)

4.3% disagree

  1. If two or more statements had equal means, then fractional ranks were computed by averaging the ordinal ranks to reflect ties. For example, rank 1.5 indicates joint “first/second” (i.e., (1 + 2)/2 = 1.5) and a rank of 3.5 indicates joint “third/fourth” (i.e., (3 + 4)/2 = 3.5) and so forth
  2. *A new item suggested by a panel member during the first round
  3. aWhere n is < 23, the corresponding responses were excluded from the analysis if the response option ‘Do not recall/use’ was selected