The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Patient Expectations of Benefit From Interventions for Neck Pain and Resulting Influence on Outcomes
Open accessAbstract
Study Design: Retrospective cohort. Objectives: The objectives of this study were (1) to examine patients' general expectations for treatment by physical therapists and specific expectations for common interventions in patients with neck pain, and (2) to assess the extent to which the patients' general and specific expectations for treatment, particularly spinal manipulation, affect clinical outcomes. Background: Patient expectations can have a profound influence on the magnitude of treatment outcome across a broad variety of patient conditions. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data from a clinical trial of interventions for neck pain. Prior to beginning treatment for neck pain, 140 patients were asked about their general expectations of benefit as well as their specific expectations for individual interventions. Next, we examined how these expectations related to the patients' ratings of the success of treatment at 1 and 6 months after treatment. Results: Patients had positive expectations for treatment by a physical therapist, with more than 80% of patients expecting moderate relief of symptoms, prevention of disability, the ability to do more activity, and to sleep better. The manual therapy interventions of massage (87%) and manipulation (75%) had the highest proportion of patients who expected these interventions to significantly improve neck pain. These were followed by strengthening (70%) and range-of-motion (54%) exercises. Very few patients thought surgery would improve their neck pain (less than 1%). At 1 month, patients who were unsure of experiencing complete pain relief had lower odds of reporting a successful outcome than patients expecting complete relief (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11, 0.99). Believing that manipulation would help and not receiving manipulation lowered the odds of success (OR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.72) compared to believing manipulation would help and receiving manipulation. Six months after treatment, having unsure expectations for complete pain relief lowered the odds of success (OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.7), whereas definitely expecting to do more exercise increased the odds of success (OR = 11.4; 95% CI: 1.7, 74.7). Regarding self-reported disability assessed with the Neck Disability Index, patients who believed manipulation would help and received manipulation reported less disability than those who did not believe manipulation would help and both received manipulation (mean difference, −3.8; 95% CI: −5.9, −1.5; P = .006) and did not receive manipulation (mean difference, −5.7; 95% CI: −9.3, −2.1; P = .014). There was also an interaction between time and the expectation for complete relief. Conclusion: General expectations of benefit have a strong influence on clinical outcomes for patients with neck pain. Level of Evidence: Prognosis, level 2b-. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2013;43(7):457–465. Epub 18 March 2013. doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.4492
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The fear-avoidance model of musculoskeletal pain: Current state of scientific evidence
Leeuw, M., Goossens, M. E. J. B., Linton, S. J., Crombez, G., Boersma, K., & Vlaeyen, J. W. S. (2007) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-006-9085-0 · Cited by 2,261
Benedetti, F., Pollo, A., Lopiano, L., Lanotte, M., Vighetti, S., & Rainero, I. (2003) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.23-10-04315.2003 · Cited by 788
Kalauokalani, D., Cherkin, D. C., Sherman, K. J., Koepsell, T. D., & Deyo, R. A. (2001) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200107010-00005 · Cited by 407
Cited by
Enhance placebo, avoid nocebo: How contextual factors affect physiotherapy outcomes
Testa, M., & Rossettini, G. (2016) · Manual Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.math.2016.04.006 · Cited by 256
What effect can manual therapy have on a patient’s pain experience
Bishop, M. D., Torres-Cueco, R., Gay, C. W., Lluch-Girbés, E., Beneciuk, J. M., & Bialosky, J. E. (2015) · Pain Management · doi:10.2217/pmt.15.39 · Cited by 197
Self-citationEklund, A., De Carvalho, D., Pagé, I., Wong, A., Johansson, M. S., Pohlman, K. A., Hartvigsen, J., & Swain, M. (2019) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1002/ejp.1407 · Cited by 76
Regional interdependence and manual therapy directed at the thoracic spine
McDevitt, A., Young, J., Mintken, P., & Cleland, J. (2015) · Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy · doi:10.1179/2042618615y.0000000005 · Cited by 57
Self-citationReynolds, B., Puentedura, E. J., Kolber, M. J., & Cleland, J. A. (2020) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9175 · Cited by 43
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Bishop, M. D., Mintken, P., Bialosky, J. E., & Cleland, J. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 457-465
- ISSN
- 0190-6011 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-1344
- OpenAlex
- W1996225463
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patient Expectations of Benefit From Interventions for Neck Pain and Resulting Influence on Outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2519/jospt.2013.4492
- The paper
- Bishop, M. D., Mintken, P., Bialosky, J. E., & Cleland, J. A. (2013). Patient Expectations of Benefit From Interventions for Neck Pain and Resulting Influence on Outcomes. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2013.4492
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.