MYMOP - Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile

Original Editor - Abbey Wright

Top Contributors - Abbey Wright, Oyemi Sillo and Kim Jackson  

Online Course: What Do You Stand For? A Journey Into the World of Environmental Physiotherapy Webinar You Stand For? A Journey Into the World of Environmental Physiotherapy Webinar Become inspired to support and practice Environmental Physiotherapy Start course 1 hour - - - - Powered by Physiopedia Course instructor Ronja Schüßler Physiotherapist, environmental physiotherapy explorer  • 

Introduction[edit | edit source]

The Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP) tool is a generic patient specific outcome tool to assess general health which was originally created in 1996, since then several editions have been produced including the MYMOP2 (which is pictured below)[1][2]. It can be used for musculo-skeletal or respiratory conditions and gives an individualized approach and measure regarding the symptoms and activities that are effected by the symptoms[3].

[4]

The second version of the MYMOP also asks the patient about analgesia including the doses which in the first version was not included.

MYMOP2 Initial questionnaire
MYMOP2 Follow up


Description[edit | edit source]

The MYMOP tool is completed in the initial consultation. One or two symptoms are listed which are effected by the patient's condition such as "right leg weakness", this is then rated by the patient on a scale 0-6 taking into consideration their symptoms over the last week. This rating scale should be done by the patient and not influenced by the practitioner.[5]

  • 0 being: "as good as it can be"
  • 6 being: "as bad as it could be".

The patient would then choose an activity that has been effected by the symptom, and again rate the activity on a scale of 0-6 over the last week. The patient can also rate their well-being on the same scale however it is not essential for the data analysis.

On the initial MYMOP2 it also asks for medication usage and the patient's opinion on taking medication.

On follow up a similar MYMOP2 is completed with the same 0-6 scale but giving the option to add a third symptom and less detail regarding medication. The follow up MYMOP2 can be done mid-way through treatment as well as on discharge to give a measure of progress for both patient and practitioner.

A minimum clinically important change in score after intervention should be between 0.5-1.0: any change greater than 1.0 can be considered clinically significant.[2]

See MYMOP2 scoring for how to score the initial and follow up MYMOP2.


[6]

Advantages[edit | edit source]

  • Patient centered[5]
  • The MYMOP has been shown to be effective at measuring clinical effectiveness associated with acupuncture treatments which are typically difficult to prove clinical improvement. [7]
  • Simple to administer[7]
  • Sensitive to clinical change[7][8]
  • Can be used in acute or persistent conditions[2]
  • Improves patient-practitioner communication[8]

Disadvantages[edit | edit source]

The initial version was criticized due to it not including information regarding medication used for the condition, this has been added in the second version of the MYMOP2 (which is pictured above).[9] It does require some therapist involvement on the initial questionnaire so is not suitable for postal use.

It also requires patients to list the "most severe" problems so in patients with multiple issues it can be difficult for them to identify the most severe problem.

Evidence[edit | edit source]

The MYMOP2 has been shown to be validated and highly sensitive/responsive outcome measure. [2][5]

Resources[edit | edit source]

Related Articles[edit | edit source]

Further patient specific measures include:

Related articles
Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) - Physiopedia Introduction Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are a fundamental tool in the today’s physiotherapy practice. In a guidance document by The United States Department of Health[1] and Human Services about the use of PROMs, they are defined as reports of a patient’s health condition that come straight from the patient himself, and that do not consider any interpretation of the patient’s response by a health professional. PROMs are tipically in the form of questionnaires (in paper or electronic form) that include the instructions and can be carried out autonomously by the patient. As stated by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy[2], outcomes are progressively turning into the currency of the modern healthcare concept, therefore PROMs are essential to demonstrate the value and the success of the practice of physiotherapy. [3] Categories of PROMs[edit | edit source] There are two main categories: generic PROMs, that measure the wellbeing of all types of people, regardless of their disease and condition-specific PROMs, that focus on a particular disease and target the relevant concerns for a population[4]. Two significative examples are the EQ-5D for generic PROMs, that evaluates a person’s sate of health, and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) for condition-specific PROMs, that assesses shoulder stiffness and pain of unspecified origin. Furthermore, there is a third category of PROMs, less used in practice, but that lately have been gaining attention both in research and practice. This category includes individualised instruments such as the Patient Generated Index (PGI), Patient Specific Function Scale (PSFS) or the Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP). These measures assess patient's definition of health related quality of life. Their aim is to overcome the general pre-definition of the outcomes usually being measured by health professionals. As the other PROMs, they are particularly useful for goal setting and progress monitoring[4]. How to use PROMs[edit | edit source] PROMs are used in three different areas[4]: in research in service evaluation for policy maker in clinical practice The most of physiotherapists use them in routine clinical practice. They can be administered on paper, or on any electronic device such as smartphones or computers, and are completed by the patient indipendently following the instructions. The role of the physiotherapist is to choose the appropriate PROM, calculate the score and set follow-up assessements at the appropriate time. To choose the appropriate PROM it is useful to ask these two questions: ‘what do I want to measure?’ and ‘what is the rationale for assessment?'[4]. Moreover, the physiotherapist should also verify the strenght of the outcome measure choosen by its psychometric properties (validity, inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability, responsiveness, minimal clinically important difference). There are some useful resources that help to find an appropriate outcome measures (not only PROMs) for example the outcome measures list, the rehabilitation measures database and COSMIN. Why using PROMs[edit | edit source] Using PROMs in clinical practice can have many benefits. These are the most common ones: support of decision-making improvement of patient-centred care improvement of clinical reasoning process establishment of treatment objectives monitoring of treatment results stimulating patient awarness Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are a fundamental tool in the today’s physiotherapy practice. In a guidance document by The United States Department of Health and Human Services about the use of PROMs, they are defined as reports of a patient’s health condition that come straight from the patient himself, and that do not consider any interpretation of the patient’s response by a health professional. PROMs are tipically in the form of questionnaires (in paper or electronic form) that include the instructions and can be carried out autonomously by the patient. As stated by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, outcomes are progressively turning into the currency of the modern healthcare concept, therefore PROMs are essential to demonstrate the value and the success of the practice of physiotherapy.[5] Projects[edit | edit source] Widespread adoption of PROMs in physiotherapy clinical practice has been recently encouraged in some countries to gather data for quality of physiotherapy service evaluation and for improvement purposes. For example, in the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF) carried out a programme to stimulate the use of PROMs in clinical practice, to test them for their added value in supporting physiotherapists and patients in decision-making[4]. Moreover, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), is an international initiative that operates in health care, that aims to improve the quality of studies on measurement properties and to standardize outcome measurement instruments by developing core outcome sets. Category:Outcome Measures - Physiopedia Search Search Search Toggle navigation pPhysiopedia pPhysiopedia About News Contribute Courses Resources Contact Donate Login pPhysiopedia About News Contribute Courses Resources Shop Contact Donate p o + Contents Editors Categories Share Cite Contents loading... Editors loading... Categories loading... When refering to evidence in academic writing, you should always try to reference the primary (original) source. That is usually the journal article where the information was first stated. In most cases Physiopedia articles are a secondary source and so should not be used as references. Physiopedia articles are best used to find the original sources of information (see the references list at the bottom of the article). If you believe that this Physiopedia article is the primary source for the information you are refering to, you can use the button below to access a related citation statement. Cite article Category:Outcome Measures Jump to:navigation, search This page categorises all pages related to outcome measures. An outcome measure is the result of a test that is used to objectively determine the baseline function of a patient at the beginning of treatment. Once treatment has commenced, the same instrument can be used to determine progress and treatment efficacy. With the move towards Evidence Based Practice (EBP) in the health sciences, objective measures of outcome are important to provide credible and reliable justification for treatment. The instrument should also be convenient to apply for the therapist and comfortable for the patient. The outcome measure selected should have been shown to test the particular aspect of function that it is reported to test (validity) and the results should be the same (or similar) regardless of who administers the test or when it is administered (reliability). Finally, the test or scale should be able to test change over time (responsiveness). The Chartered Society of Physiotherapists in the United Kingdom makes it clear that standardised outcome measures should be used routinely in normal practice: Read more about Outcome Measures Guide to selecting Outcome Measures Subcategories This category has the following 21 subcategories, out of 21 total. A Ankle - Outcome Measures‎ (7 P) C Cardiopulmonary - Outcome Measures‎ (7 P) Cardiovascular Disease - Outcome Measures‎ (4 P) Cervical Spine - Outcome Measures‎ (3 P) E Elbow - Outcome Measures‎ (3 P) F Foot - Outcome Measures‎ (11 P) H Hand - Outcome Measures‎ (16 P) Head - Outcome Measures‎ (15 P) Hip - Outcome Measures‎ (9 P) K Knee - Outcome Measures‎ (7 P) L Lumbar Spine - Outcome Measures‎ (14 P) M Mental Health - Outcome Measures‎ (15 P) Multiple Sclerosis - Outcome Measures‎ (2 P) N Neurological - Outcome Measures‎ (59 P) O Older People/Geriatrics - Outcome Measures‎ (54 P) P Paediatrics - Outcome Measures‎ (22 P) Pelvis - Outcome Measures‎ (4 P) S Shoulder - Outcome Measures‎ (5 P) Stroke - Outcome Measures‎ (21 P) T Thoracic Spine - Outcome Measures‎ (12 P) W Wrist - Outcome Measures‎ (5 P) Pages in category "Outcome Measures" The following 200 pages are in this category, out of 221 total. (previous page) (next page) 1 10 Metre Walk Test 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) 2 2 Minute Walk Test 28-Item General Health Questionnaire 3 30 Seconds Sit To Stand Test 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) 4 4-item Dynamic Gait Index 4-Item Pain Intensity Measure (P4) 8 8-Item Sports Subscale A Abbey Pain Scale ABILHAND Assessment Achilles Tendon Total Rupture Score Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) Activities of Daily Living Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale American College of Rheumatology criteria for the fibromyalgia classification (1990) Amputee Mobility Predictor Arthritis Hand Function Test (AHFT) Arthritis Impact Measure B Back Pain Functional Scale Balance Error Scoring System Bangla Clubfoot Tool Barthel Index Bath Assessment of Walking Inventory Beighton score Berg Balance Scale Borg Rating Of Perceived Exertion Box and Block Test Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form Brigham and Women's Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Brodie–Trendelenburg Test Burn Specific Health Scale -Brief (BSHS-B) Burns Scar Index (Vancouver Scar Scale) C Catherine Bergego Scale Central Sensitisation Inventory Cerebral Palsy Outcome Measures Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS) Clinical Frailty Scale Clinical Outcome Assessment Coma Recovery Scale (Revised) Community Balance and Mobility Scale Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome Score Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool Curl-ups D DASH Outcome Measure Depression Anxiety Stress Scale Diabetes and Health-Related Quality of Life DN4 questionnaire Dynamic Gait Index Dyspnoea Management Questionnaire E Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI) Elderly Mobility Scale EQ-5D Evaluation of Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life F Faces Pain Scale - Revised Falls Efficacy Scale - International (FES-I) Falls Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT) Fatigue Severity Scale Fear‐Avoidance Belief Questionnaire Feasibility of Applying a Simple Method to Quantify Clinical Experience: A Case Report Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) Figure of 8 Walk Test Fitzgerald Test Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Foot and Ankle Assessment Foot and Ankle Disability Index Foot Function Index (FFI) Foot Posture Index (FP1-6) Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Recovery after Stroke Fullerton Advanced Balance (FAB) Scale Functional Ambulation Category Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Functional Assessment of HIV Infection (FAHI) Functional Gait Assessment Functional Independence Measure (FIM) Functional Index of Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA) Functional Movement Screen (FMS) Functional Reach Test (FRT) G Gait and Lower Limb Observation of Paediatrics - (GALLOP) Gait Speed as an Objective Measure Galveston Orientation & Amnesia Test Gartland and Werley Score Geriatric Depression Scale Glasgow Coma Scale Global Deterioration Scale Gross Motor Function Measure Guide to Selecting Outcome Measures H Harris Hip Score Headache Disability Index High Level Mobility and Assessment Tool (HiMAT) Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Hip Outcome Score Hoehn and Yahr Scale Houghton Scale Huddersfield Functional Index I Ibadan Knee/Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Measure (IKHOAM) ICF Checklist ICU Mobility Scale Identification of Functional Ankle Instability Incontinence Quality of Life Instrument Infant Neurological International Battery (INFANIB) International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT) J Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test K Katz ADL Kinesiophobia Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score - Child Knee outcome survey L L-Test Lateral Epicondyle Tendinopathy Toolkit: Section C - Outcome Measures Leg Lowering Test Locomotor Capabilities Index-5 Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) M Male Urinary Symptom Impact Questionnaire (MUSIQ) Male Urogenital Distress Inventory (MUDI) Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire Manual Assessment of Respiratory Motion (MARM) Mayo Elbow Performance Index McGill Pain Questionnaire Medical Research Council (MRC) Dyspnoea Scale Mental Health Outcome Measures for Physiotherapists in Clinical Practice Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire Mini-Mental State Examination Moberg Pick-Up Test Modified Ashworth Scale Moss Attention Rating Scale Motor Assessment Scale MYMOP - Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile N Neck Disability Index Neck Pain and Disability Scale Neurological Outcome Measures NIH Stroke Scale Nine-Hole Peg Test Nottingham Health Profile Numeric Pain Rating Scale O Occiput to Wall Distance OWD Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag Oswestry Disability Index Outcome Measures Outcome Measures for Patients with Lower Limb Amputations Oxford Shoulder Instability Score Oxford Shoulder Score P Pain Catastrophizing Scale Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) Patient Health Questionnaire Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Patient Reported Outcome Measures for HIV Patient Specific Functional Scale Pediatric Balance Scale PedsQL Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI - 20) Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ - 7) Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire (PGQ) Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) System Perme Intensive Care Unit Mobility Score Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) Pirani Score Pirani Score Example Positive Outcomes HIV Post Concussion Syndrome Case Study: Following a Fall Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Posture and Postural Ability Scale Premenstrual and Menstrual Symptoms Rating Scales Progressive Supranuclear Palsy Rating Scale (PSP-RS) PRWE Score Psychometric Properties Q Quality of Life Quality of Life for Osteoporosis (Qualeffo) Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale R Rancho Los Amigos Level of Cognitive Functioning Scale Revised Hammersmith Scale (RHS) for Spinal Muscular Atrophy Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) Rivermead Mobility Index Roland‐Morris Disability Questionnaire Romberg Test Roye Score S SARC-F: A Simple Questionnaire to Rapidly Diagnose Sarcopenia Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) Schober Test Segmental Assessment of Trunk Control (SATCo) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score Short Physical Performance Battery Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) Sickness Impact Profile Six Minute Walk Test / 6 Minute Walk Test Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) Spinal Cord Injury Outcome Measures Overview Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Stroke Outcome Measures Overview Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM) T Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia Test of Infant Motor Performance The 4-Stage Balance Test The Assessment of Pain and Occupational Performance The Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation (BOOMER) (previous page) (next page) Retrieved from "http:///index.php?title=Category:Outcome_Measures&oldid=206437" Categories: Assessment Open Physio EBP Occupational Health Rehabilitation Foundations Objective Assessment Get Top Tips Tuesday and The Latest Physiopedia updates Email Address I give my consent to Physiopedia to be in touch with me via email using the information I have provided in this form for the purpose of news, updates and marketing. HP Yes please Our Partners The content on or accessible through Physiopedia is for informational purposes only. Physiopedia is not a substitute for professional advice or expert medical services from a qualified healthcare provider. Read more pPhysiopedia oPhysiospot +Plus   Physiopedia About News Courses Contribute Shop Contact Content Articles Categories Presentations Research Resources Projects Legal Disclaimer Terms Privacy Cookies © Physiopedia 2023 | Physiopedia is a registered charity in the UK, no. 1173185 Back to top Nottingham Health Profile - Physiopedia Objective The Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) was originally created as a standardised tool to survey health problems and measure medical or social interventions[1]. It was created in the 1970s and developed from more than 2000 statements from more than 700 people about the effects of ill-health[1]. Intended Population[edit | edit source] Specific patient groups or the general population. Method of Use[edit | edit source] The NHP is a patient-reported questionnaire. Respondents tick yes or no boxes to answer questions about their health and its effects on their daily life. The questionnaire is divided into two parts. The first parts comprises 38 questions in six categories: sleep, physical mobility, energy, pain, emotional reactions, and social isolation[1]. This first section is weighted to reflect how severe an impact the respondent thinks their health is having on the above areas of life[1]. The second part of the NHP is made up of seven statements about areas of life that are commonly affected by health: paid employment, jobs around the house, social life, personal relationships, sex life, hobbies and interests, and holidays[1]. Scores on the NHP can range from 0 i.e. no distress to 100 i.e severe distress. The NHP is copyrighted so check if your institution has a licence. Copies may be found online, for instance, here. Reference[edit | edit source] Original article Evidence[edit | edit source] Reliability[edit | edit source] Many studies have assessed the reliability of the NHP. The original study[1] tested reliability in patients with osteoarthrosis and peripheral vascular disease and found the NHP to be reliable. Validity[edit | edit source] Many studies have assessed the validity of the NHP. In particular, the NHP has been found to be valid for the elderly[1][2], pregnant women[1], and those with minor surgery[3], fractured limbs[4], stroke[5], intermittent claudication[6] or lower limb amputation[7]. The NHP is comparable in validity to the SF-36[2]. Responsiveness[edit | edit source] The original authors caution that the NHP does not pick up "milder forms of distress" due to more severe nature of the questions in the first part of the NHP, As a result, it may be difficult to compare the general population and detect change[1]. Miscellaneous[edit | edit source] The original authors note that the NHP assesses negative aspects of health rather than positive e.g. well-being[1] which means the NHP can be at odds with more recent conceptions of quality of life which focus on well-being, rather than the absence of ill health. The NHP has been compared to the SF-36 frequently in literature when assessing quality of life. Due to differences in ceiling effect and sensitivity[2][6][8][9], the SF-36 appears to be more robust a measure than the NHP. The Pulses Profile - Physiopedia Objective The PULSES Profile was designed to evaluate functional independence in ADLs of chronically ill and elderly institutionalized populations. The profile is used to predict rehabilitation potential, to evaluate patient progress, and to assist in program planning. [1] The PULSES Profile was developed from the Canadian Army’s 1943 “Physical Standards and Instructions” for the medical examination of army recruits and soldiers, known as the PULHEMS Profile. The components of the PULSES acronym are: P = physical condition U = upper limb functions L = lower limb functions S = sensory components (speech, vision, hearing) E = excretory functions S = mental and emotional status In 1979, Granger proposed a revised version of the PULSES Profile with slight modifications to the classification levels and an expanded scope for three categories. This is now considered the standard version.[2] Intended Population [edit | edit source] Chronically ill and elderly institutionalized populations Method of Use[edit | edit source] Four levels of impairment were originally specified for each component and the six scores were presented separately, as a profile. Evidence[edit | edit source] Reliability[edit | edit source] For the revised version, Granger et al. reported a test-retest reliability of 0.87 and an inter-rater reliability exceeding 0.95, comparable with their results for the Barthel Index (5, p150). In a sample of 197 stroke patients, coefficient alpha was 0.74 at admission and 0.78 at discharge (7, p762). Validity[edit | edit source] In the study of 197 stroke patients, the PULSES Profile at admission and discharge correlated −0.82 and −0.88 with the Functional Independence Measure (FIM); the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were virtually identical for both instruments in predicting discharge to the community versus long term care. In a logistic regression prediction of discharge destination, the FIM accounted for no further variance once the PULSES had been included in the analysis (7, p763). In the same study, a multitrait-multimethod analysis supported the construct validity of the PULSES. Profile Of Function and Impairment Level Experience with Parkinson's Disease (PROFILE PD) - Physiopedia Introduction The Profile Of Function and Impairment Level Experience with Parkinson's Disease (PROFILE PD) used today is based on the Duke University Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale.[1] PROFILE PD was developed as an alternative to the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). The UPDRS is time-consuming and requires extensive training to administer proficiently, limiting its clinical utility for physiotherapists. PROFILE PD was developed with the goal to overcome these shortcomings.[2] Intended Population[edit | edit source] Unlike the UPDRS, which is more suited for later stages of PD, PROFILE PD can be used for all stages.[2] Scoring and Interpretation[edit | edit source] PROFILE PD is a 24-item scale, each item is scored between 0 (no problem) to 4 (severe or marked difficulty). This leads to a maximum score of 96 which suggests extreme dysfunction and a lowest score of 0 referring to no dysfunction.[2] The 24 items are divided into three sections[2]: A. Body systems[edit | edit source] 1. Tremor with activity 2. Resting tremor 3. Rigidity 4. Posture 5. Postural stability 6. Dyskinesia 7. Dystonia 8. Clinical fluctuations 9. Falling 10. Freezing with gait/ Start hesitation 11. Body bradykinesia B. Activities[edit | edit source] 12. Speech 13. Dressing 14. Hygiene 15. Mealtime activities 16. Simple transfers 17. Bed mobility 18. Chair rise 19. Gait 20. Fine motor movement performance 21. Gross motor performance C. Cognition/Affect[edit | edit source] 22. Depression 23. Memory 24. Involvement Psychometric properties[edit | edit source] Validity[edit | edit source] Construct validity was established with UPDRS (r = 0.86), Schwab & England Activities of Daily Living Scale (r = -0.83), and Continuous Scale Physical Functional Performance test (r = -0.62).[2] Reliability[edit | edit source] Inter-rater reliability of PROFILE PD is high (ICC = 0.97).[2] Translations[edit | edit source] A Brazilian version of PROFILE PD has been developed.[3] Resources[edit | edit source] PROFILE PD is included in the Appendix of this paper.

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ Mirza S, Salisbury C, Hopper C, Foster N, Montgomery A. Comparing sensitivity to change of two patient-reported outcome measures in a randomised trial of patients referred for physiotherapy services. Trials. 2013 Nov 1;14(S1):O50.
  2. ↑ Jump up to: 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Polus BI, Kimpton AJ, Walsh MJ. Use of the measure your medical outcome profile (MYMOP2) and W-BQ12 (Well-Being) outcomes measures to evaluate chiropractic treatment: an observational study. Chiropractic & manual therapies. 2011 Dec;19(1):7.
  3. ↑ Paterson C, Langan CE, McKaig GA, Anderson PM, Maclaine GD, Rose LB, Walker SJ, Campbell MJ. Assessing patient outcomes in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: the measure your medical outcome profile (MYMOP), medical outcomes study 6-item general health survey (MOS-6A) and EuroQol (EQ-5D). Quality of Life Research. 2000 May 1;9(5):521-7.
  4. ↑ getwelluk. What is MYMOP? Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS4pblMO5RI [last accessed 15/1/2023]
  5. ↑ Jump up to: 5.0 5.1 5.2 Hermann K, Kraus K, Herrmann K, Joos S. A brief patient-reported outcome instrument for primary care: German translation and validation of the Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP). Health and quality of life outcomes. 2014 Dec;12(1):112.
  6. ↑ getwelluk. How Do I Use MYMOP? Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8d0w38n-eI [last accessed 15/1/2023]
  7. ↑ Jump up to: 7.0 7.1 7.2 Hull SK, Page CP, Skinner BD, Linville JC, Coeytaux RR. Exploring outcomes associated with acupuncture. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine. 2006 Apr 1;12(3):247-54.
  8. ↑ Jump up to: 8.0 8.1 Paterson C. Measuring outcomes in primary care: a patient generated measure, MYMOP, compared with the SF-36 health survey. Bmj. 1996 Apr 20;312(7037):1016-20.
  9. ↑ Paterson C, Britten N. In pursuit of patient-centred outcomes: a qualitative evaluation of the ‘Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile’. Journal of health services research & policy. 2000 Jan;5(1):27-36.
Retrieved from "http:///index.php?title=MYMOP_-_Measure_Yourself_Medical_Outcome_Profile&oldid=325234"