An exploration of patients’ perceptions and coping strategies for LBP
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines for managing LBP exist but their recommendations are often not used by health professionals in primary care. A key challenge to address this issue is understanding how people understand LBP, how they feel about it, and cope with it - particularly with regard to why they visit their doctors and their treatment expectations. This is important to understand, particularly since physician barriers to following LBP treatment guidelines have centered on patient issues (such as patient demand for imaging). METHODS: This was a qualitative, exploratory study using semi-structured interviews to explore patient perceptions of LBP and their coping strategies, paying particular attention to why patients with LBP in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) seek care from family physicians and their treatment expectations, especially with regard to imaging. Eligible patients included adults aged 18 + years or older, living in both rural and urban settings in NL, Canada, who had visited their family physician about low back pain within the year prior to the interview. Researchers experienced in applying the Common-sense Model of Self-regulation (CSM), used the model to inform the development of our question guide and as a framework for the data analysis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found that new onset, severity, or persistent pain prompted patients to visit their family doctor, primarily to seek advice and/or a diagnosis, or for a referral to imaging or other providers. While patients believed that imaging was essential to understanding the underlying cause of their symptoms or informing their treatment, they were divided about its effectiveness - some felt it was beneficial to their treatment while others reported that it had no effect. We found that patients were unified in their largely negative views regarding prognosis and all experienced a range of negative emotions surrounding their LBP such as fear, stress, frustration, and guilt. We also found wide variation in understanding of cause and use of coping strategies. Patients posited several causes for the pain including injury, overexertion, comorbid conditions, and issues related to posture and sitting, and were split on their thoughts regarding prevention - about half thought it could be prevented, half did not. We found that patients coped with their LBP using a variety of strategies but were often disappointed in the results. Most reported no benefit to visiting their family doctors for their LBP. Some were pleased with their experiences with allied HCPs, noting small, but steady, improvements using recommended exercises but others were generally dissatisfied. CONCLUSION: Our exploration of patient views and expectations for low back pain care indicates a mismatch between the care they are looking for and the care they receive. It also suggested a general lack of knowledge about the cause of LBP, the value and usefulness of imaging for its diagnosis and treatment, and poor physician-patient communication.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».