{"id":27956,"date":"2026-05-21T12:35:59","date_gmt":"2026-05-21T10:35:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.physiotutors.com\/?post_type=research&p=27956"},"modified":"2026-05-20T22:50:46","modified_gmt":"2026-05-20T20:50:46","slug":"matching-patient-expectations","status":"publish","type":"research","link":"https:\/\/www.physiotutors.com\/research\/matching-patient-expectations\/","title":{"rendered":"Bridging the Gap: Matching Patient Expectations with Physiotherapists’ Perceptions"},"featured_media":27966,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":""},"featured-tag":[],"tracking_tag":[2205],"class_list":["post-27956","research","type-research","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tracking_tag-ebp-statistics"],"acf":{"free_access":"unfree","app_link":"https:\/\/app.physiotutors.com\/research-reviews\/matching-patient-expectations","sections":[{"acf_fc_layout":"page-header-small","background":{"background_image":27965,"background_image_alt_text":"matching patient expectations"},"heading":"Bridging the Gap: Matching Patient Expectations with Physiotherapists' Perceptions","subheading":"Pakhomova et al. (2026)","benefits":[{"benefit":"This cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study examines discrepancies between patients and clinicians regarding expectations and perceptions of physiotherapy "},{"benefit":"The most important expectations identified were a thorough initial physical examination, understanding the health condition, and the clinician\u2019s ability to listen and educate "},{"benefit":"Physiotherapists tended to assume that patients primarily expected immediate solutions and reassurance"}]},{"acf_fc_layout":"content","background_color":"none","content_alignment":"left","content_editor":"

Introduction<\/h2>\r\nPatient perceptions and expectations are key drivers of clinical outcomes. Evidence suggests that higher patient satisfaction is associated with greater engagement, improved treatment adherence, and enhanced perceived outcomes. Conversely, negative expectations may contribute to a nocebo effect, increasing pain and reducing treatment effectiveness. Accurately identifying and addressing patient expectations is therefore essential, yet often challenging in clinical practice. This article explores patient expectations in physiotherapy and highlights potential discrepancies between patients' priorities and clinicians\u2019 assumptions. This review aims to provide practical, ready-to-use tools to better understand <\/span>patient expectations<\/span>, satisfaction, and perceptions, to improve clinical outcomes.<\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Methods<\/h2>\r\nThis cross-sectional study followed STROBE guidelines for observational research and CHERRIES recommendations for online surveys. Two structured questionnaires were developed and pilot-tested on six participants (three patients and three physiotherapists).\u00a0<\/span>\r\n\r\nThe questionnaires collected demographic data and assessed 22 expectations across four domains: information, interaction, expertise, and environment. Patients ranked expectations according to personal priorities, while physiotherapists ranked them based on perceived patient priorities.<\/span>\r\n\r\nSample sizes were calculated using SurveyMonkey (95% confidence level, 5% margin of error), targeting 385 patients and 283 physiotherapists. Participants were recruited through digital channels, including patient associations, professional networks, social media, and mailing lists.\u00a0<\/span>\r\n\r\nThe eligibility criteria are further presented in Table 1.<\/span>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_27957\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"1350\"]\"matching From: Pakhomova et al., Musculoskeletal Care (2026)[\/caption]\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nStatistical analysis was conducted using Minitab. Group comparisons were performed using Mann\u2013Whitney tests, based on the mean importance assigned to each expectation across the four domains.\u00a0<\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Results<\/h2>\r\nGeographical and Sociodemographic Data<\/b><\/b>A total of 618 patients with musculoskeletal disorders and 489 physiotherapists were included after screening for complete responses. Data were collected via online and paper questionnaires, with incomplete entries excluded and no imputation performed. Analyses were conducted with a 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error. Patients were mainly located in specific French departments (Loiret, H\u00e9rault, Doubs), while physiotherapists were more evenly distributed, with a higher concentration in \u00cele-de-France. Sociodemographic characteristics of physiotherapists are detailed separately.<\/span>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_27958\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"1362\"]\"matching From: Pakhomova et al., Musculoskeletal Care (2026)[\/caption]\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_27959\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"1278\"]\"matching From: Pakhomova et al., Musculoskeletal Care (2026)[\/caption]\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nPriority Expectations of Patients With <\/b>Musculoskeletal Disorders<\/b>\r\n\r\nDifferent expectations<\/b>\r\n\r\nExpectations were ranked according to determined categories (information, interaction, environment, expertise). The patient's top priorities were understanding their condition (information), having a practitioner who listens and educates (interaction), receiving a thorough initial physical examination (expertise), and rapid access to care (environment).<\/span>\r\n\r\nSimilarities between Expectations Perceived by Patients and Physiotherapists<\/b>\r\n\r\n<\/b>Comparisons of <\/span>patient expectations <\/span>with<\/span> physiotherapists highlighted both alignments and discrepancies across all categories, with detailed statistical analyses identifying significant differences. These similarities and discrepancies are presented in the following figures.\u00a0<\/span>\r\n\r\nFor clarity, the figure would benefit from specifying the unit of the ordinate axis. As indicated by the authors, scores range from 1 to N, where 1 represents the highest priority and N the lowest. Each item is ranked within its category, with N corresponding to the total number of items in that category.<\/span>\r\n\r\nInformation<\/b>\r\n\r\n<\/b>Physiotherapists overestimated the importance of providing solutions, while underestimating patients' need for explanations and advice for self-management. Both groups aligned on the importance of understanding the condition, though without statistical significance. Overall, gaps relate to patient education and autonomy.<\/span>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_27960\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"1348\"]\"matching From: Pakhomova et al., Musculoskeletal Care (2026)[\/caption]\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nTherapeutic Interaction<\/b>\r\n\r\n<\/b>While both groups agreed on the importance of listening and communication, physiotherapists underestimated <\/span>patient expectations <\/span>for involvement in decision-making and motivation. Conversely, physiotherapists overvalued reassurance and psychosocial attention. This reflects a mismatch between active versus more passive models of patient engagement.<\/span>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_27961\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"1338\"]\"matching From: Pakhomova et al., Musculoskeletal Care (2026)[\/caption]\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nTechnical Expertise<\/b>\r\n\r\n<\/b>Patients prioritized initial assessment and diagnostic explanations more than physiotherapists, whereas physiotherapists placed greater emphasis on treatment outcomes. No difference was found for receiving expected care. This suggests patients value early-stage clinical processes more than practitioners anticipate.<\/span>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_27962\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"1332\"]\"matching From: Pakhomova et al., Musculoskeletal Care (2026)[\/caption]\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nCare Environment<\/b>\r\n\r\n<\/b>Both groups valued short waiting times, though physiotherapists overestimated their importance. Patients placed greater emphasis on clinic quality and comfort. Other logistical factors showed no significant differences, indicating environmental aspects are somewhat underestimated by physiotherapists.<\/span>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_27963\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"1346\"]\"matching From: Pakhomova et al., Musculoskeletal Care (2026)[\/caption]\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nIllustrated Overview of the Results<\/b>\r\n\r\nOverall, results show moderate matching of <\/span>patient expectations <\/span>and physiotherapists' perceptions, but consistent discrepancies remain. These mainly concern the importance of explanation, patient involvement, and care environment quality, with physiotherapists generally identifying key priorities but misjudging their relative importance.<\/span>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_27964\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"1298\"]\"matching From: Pakhomova et al., Musculoskeletal Care (2026)[\/caption]\r\n\r\n \r\n

Questions and thoughts<\/h2>\r\nThe Common Sense Model of self-regulation (CSM) may represent a useful framework for addressing <\/span>patient expectations<\/span>. This model describes five key domains shaping an individual\u2019s representation of a health condition: <\/span>identity<\/b> (the diagnostic label, e.g., tendinopathy or fracture), <\/span>timeline<\/b> (perceived onset, duration, and progression), <\/span>consequences<\/b> (impact on physical, cognitive, and social functioning), <\/span>causes<\/b> (beliefs about the origin of the condition), and <\/span>control<\/b> (perceived ability of the patient and clinician to influence the condition).<\/span>\r\n\r\nThese domains appear particularly relevant in light of these study findings. Patients expressed strong expectations regarding understanding the cause of their pain, being listened to, and receiving a thorough physical examination. Such concerns could be effectively addressed through structured patient education grounded in the CSM domains, helping to better align clinical explanations with patient beliefs and priorities.<\/span>\r\n\r\nHowever, applying the CSM in practice requires caution. The study highlights that patients expect to be actively involved in decision-making. Therefore, education strategies based on this model should avoid a purely top-down approach. Instead, they should promote a collaborative, patient-centred dialogue to ensure that information sharing supports autonomy rather than reinforcing a hierarchical dynamic.<\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Talk nerdy to me<\/h2>\r\nThe geographical distribution of participants may represent a limitation. Most patient respondents were from rural areas in France, which raises the possibility that <\/span>physiotherapy patient expectations <\/span>and perceptions differ between rural and urban populations. Such differences may be influenced by factors like education level, which can shape beliefs and attitudes toward healthcare professionals.<\/span>\r\n\r\nThe large sample size and wide geographical coverage provide strong statistical power. However, the broad inclusion criteria reduce the specificity of the findings and may limit their applicability to more defined patient subgroups.<\/span>\r\n\r\nAnother limitation relates to the use of questionnaires. The formulation of questions can introduce bias, potentially leading respondents or embedding implicit assumptions. It would be relevant to examine whether certain questions could have been phrased differently to minimize this risk.<\/span>\r\n\r\nMore fundamentally, questionnaire-based studies inherently constrain responses to predefined topics, which may not fully capture what matters most to patients. A preliminary qualitative approach could have helped identify key themes grounded in patient lived experiences. This raises questions about how the expectation categories were developed: what was their origin, and were they based on prior qualitative research or theoretical frameworks? Without this clarity, the scope of the investigation may have been narrowed. A more explicit grounding in qualitative methods (e.g., inductive approaches or grounded theory) would strengthen the conceptual foundation.<\/span>\r\n\r\nThe exclusion of incomplete questionnaires also warrants consideration. While consistent with methodological guidelines, this choice may have introduced bias by systematically excluding certain participant profiles, potentially silencing specific perspectives.<\/span>\r\n\r\nFinally, greater transparency is needed regarding questionnaire development. What was the rationale behind each question? Was a systematic process used for item generation and selection? Some concepts, such as \u201cbeing treated as an individual,\u201d would benefit from a clearer definition, as they are open to varied interpretation and may affect the consistency of responses.<\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Take-home messages<\/h2>\r\n