One-Page Patient Fact Sheets for Low Back Pain in Primary Care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Supporting informed decision-making is a fundamental aspect of primary care for low back pain. Two alternative approaches are providing fact sheets that list information about managing back pain or fact sheets that give advice on how to self-manage back pain, the comparative effects of which are unknown. Objective: To determine the effects of 1-page fact sheets on patient-reported preparedness for shared decision-making among people with low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-group parallel randomized clinical trial recruited 1080 adults from April 1, 2023, to April 30, 2024, who had recently seen their physician for uncomplicated low back pain. Participants were randomized to receive 1 of 2 one-page fact sheets. Outcomes were collected immediately after reading the fact sheet. Interventions: The information sheet was a 1-page fact sheet from a reputable medical journal and listed guideline-recommended management options. The advice sheet was a 1-page fact sheet from a recent clinical care standard and provided advice on how to self-manage low back pain. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was patient-reported preparedness for decision-making, measured by the 100-point Preparation for Decision Making scale (where higher scores indicated higher preparedness for decision-making). Secondary outcomes included intentions for guideline-recommended interventions (staying active, physical therapies, and heat application) and nonrecommended interventions (imaging and opioid medicines). Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Results: The total study sample included 1080 patients (mean [SD] age, 51.9 [14.7] years; 764 women [70.7%]). After reading the fact sheet, mean (SD) scores for preparation for decision-making were 57.6 (26.5) in the information sheet group and 52.9 (26.2) in the advice sheet group (adjusted mean difference, 4.7 points; 95% CI, 1.0-8.5 points; P = .01). A larger effect was observed among participants with chronic low back pain (mean [SD], 58.3 [28.9] points with information sheet vs 51.9 [28.4] points with advice sheet; adjusted mean difference, 6.4 points; 95% CI, 1.7-11.0 points; P = .007) compared with those with acute low back pain (mean [SD], 57.8 [26.0] points with information sheet vs 56.6 [29.2] points with advice sheet; adjusted mean difference, 1.2 points; 95% CI, -4.9 to 7.4 points; P = .70). There were no significant between-group differences in intentions to use guideline-recommended or nonrecommended interventions. Conclusion and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial among people who had recently seen their physician for uncomplicated low back pain, an information sheet listing management options was more effective than an advice sheet at preparing patients for shared decision-making. It is uncertain whether this effect is meaningful. Trial Registration: http://anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12623000603617.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».