Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Global rating of change: perspectives of patients with lumbar impairments and of their physical therapists

  • Ying Chih Wang(corresponding author)
    ,
  • Bhagwant S. Sindhu
    ,
  • Jay Kapellusch
    ,
  • Sheng Che Yen
    ,
  • Leigh Lehman
*Corresponding author for this work
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Abstract

Background: Global rating of change (GROC) scores provide a means of measuring patients’ self-perceived change in health status over time. Objectives: The purposes of the study were to examine agreement of GROC ratings between the patient (GROCp) and the treating therapist (GROCt), the impact on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) estimates by reporting resources, and the relationships between the subjective GROC scores and objective outcome measures. Methods: Data from 52,767 patients with orthopedic lumbar spine impairments treated in 623 outpatient rehabilitation clinics in 34 states (United States) were analyzed. Patient’s functional status (FS) before and after the treatment was measured using the Lumbar Computerized Adaptive Testing (LCAT) survey (0–100 scale). The GROC ratings were obtained from both the patients and their caring therapists at discharge. Results: On average, GROCp (mean [(SD] = 3.1 [4.1]) was 1.9 points lower than GROCt (mean [SD] = 5.0 [1.9]). There were negligible differences between MCID estimates derived from the patients’ GROC ratings (MCID cutoff = 9.2) and from the therapists’ GROC ratings (MCID cutoff = 9.5). While only analyzing patient data whose GROCp ≥ 0, the intraclass correlation coefficient between GROCp and GROCt was 0.61, the GROCp correlated with FS at intake at r = 0.12, with FS at discharge at r = 0.56, and with FS change scores at r = 0.47. Conclusions: Therapists tended to report higher GROC ratings than their patients did but there were negligible differences between MCID estimates derived from GROCp and that derived from GROCt.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 851-859 (9 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Physiotherapy theory and practice (Volume 35, Issue 9)

Publication milestones

  • Accepted/In press - 04/02/2018
  • Published - 09/02/2019

Publication status

Published - 09/02/2019

ISSN

0959-3985

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85044718354

Publication metrics

Metrics

Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.20
Fractional count
4
Fractional count
0.80
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1
SciVal
citations
2
SciVal
FWCI
0.59
SciVal
Author count
5
SciVal
Paper percentile
59
Scopus
citations

PlumX, opens in new tab

Captures
45
Citation count
8