1 / 26

FACTORS INVOLVED WITH PATIENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF IMPROVEMENT AT THE CPMU

FACTORS INVOLVED WITH PATIENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF IMPROVEMENT AT THE CPMU. Maji Shaikh , BSc., McMaster University Supervisor, Dr. Eleni Hapidou. Outline. Background Hypotheses Method Results Discussion. Background. Polarity of Factors. Polarity of Factors. Polarity of Factors.

ami
Download Presentation

FACTORS INVOLVED WITH PATIENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF IMPROVEMENT AT THE CPMU

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FACTORS INVOLVED WITH PATIENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF IMPROVEMENT AT THE CPMU MajiShaikh, BSc., McMaster University Supervisor, Dr. EleniHapidou

  2. Outline • Background • Hypotheses • Method • Results • Discussion

  3. Background

  4. Polarity of Factors

  5. Polarity of Factors

  6. Polarity of Factors

  7. Hypotheses

  8. Research Question What is the mechanism underlying the variation in self-improvement scores?

  9. Self Evaluation Scale • Rate own improvement in program • 1 – Poorly • 2 – Fairly • 3 – Well • 4 – Very Well • 5 – Excellent • Group patients in 3 groups • “Poorly – Fairly” • “Well” • “Very Well – Excellent”

  10. Hypotheses & Predictions • Previous findings would be replicated;The variables will follow the direction of change predicted (e.g. positive factors will increase) • There will be significant differences in self-improvement found across all variables Change in variables: We predict: “Very-Well – Excellent” > “Well” > “Poorly – Fairly”

  11. Method

  12. Program • Participants who attended CPMU (2010-2012) • 172 patients • All questionnaire data used • Attained difference scores • Used difference scores to assess SES groups

  13. Method: Questionnaires Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) Chronic Pain Program Satisfaction Questionnaire (PPSQ) Self-Evaluation Scale (SES) Chronic Pain Coping Inventory (CPCI) Pain Disability Index (PDI) Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) Pain Stages of Change Questionnaire (PSOCQ) Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) Pain Intensity Scale (PIS) Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) Clinical Anxiety Scale (CAS) Patient Questionnaire (PQ) Program Evaluation of Helpfulness (PEH)

  14. Results

  15. Main Findings • Hypothesis 1: • Previous findings will be replicated • Results: The variables changed toward the direction predicted • Exceptions: • Task Persistence was negative

  16. Main Findings • Hypothesis 2: • There will significant differences in self-improvement found across all variables • Results: • Significant differences found only in: • Age • Pain disability • Kinesiophobia • Pre-Contemplation, Action, and Maintenance • Seeking Social Support

  17. Discussion

  18. Discussion • Hypothesis 1 • Pain intensity: primarily physical • Resting & Asking for Assistance: Focus on wellness coping strategies vs. illness coping • Hypothesis 2: • Age: Older people more compliant • Stages of change help drive performance • Reduced disability • Seeking Social Support: Positive effects of groups

  19. Implications • Purpose of study: To help pinpoint where patients differ on their ratings of different physical and psychological scales, and use this to see how they differ in their perception of their improvement. • Differences found between groups can help influence which areas to focus on to ensure a patient’s positive perception of their own improvement.

  20. Thank You

More Related