Clinical Patient-Relevant Outcome Domains for Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome—A Scoping Review and Expert Panels

Ferdinand Bastiaens, Jessica T. Wegener, Raymond W.J.G. Ostelo, Bert Kristian W.P. van Roosendaal, Kris C.P. Vissers, Miranda L. van Hooff

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

    Abstract

    Large variation exists in the monitoring of clinical outcome domains in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS). Furthermore, it is unclear which outcome domains are important from the PSPS patient’s perspective. The study objectives were to identify patient-relevant outcome domains for PSPS and to establish a PSPS outcomes framework. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched to identify studies reporting views or preferences of PSPS patients on outcome domains. The Arksey and O’Malley framework was followed to identify outcome domains. An expert panel rated the domains based on the importance for PSPS patients they have treated. A framework of relevant outcome domains was established using the selected outcome domains by the expert panel. No studies were found for PSPS type 1. Five studies with 77 PSPS type 2 patients were included for further analysis. Fourteen outcome domains were identified. An expert panel, including 27 clinical experts, reached consensus on the domains pain, daily activities, perspective of life, social participation, mobility, mood, self-reliance, and sleep. Eleven domains were included in the PSPS type 2 outcomes framework. This framework is illustrative of a more holistic perspective and should be used to improve the evaluation of care for PSPS type 2 patients. Further research is needed on the prioritization of relevant outcome domains.

    Original languageEnglish
    Article number1975
    JournalJournal of clinical medicine
    Volume13
    Issue number7
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Apr 2024

    Keywords

    • expert panel
    • outcome domains
    • patient participation
    • persistent spinal pain syndrome
    • scoping review

    Cite this