The challenge of using the low back pain guidelines: a qualitative research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Current low back pain (LBP) clinical guidelines have helped to summarize the scientific evidence and research, but have failed to provide tools and guide family physicians (FPs). The purpose of this study is to identify barriers and facilitators for the implementation of LBP guidelines from family FPs' perspective. METHODS: A qualitative focus group study of FPs in the north of Israel. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants, all of them board-certified FPs. Four focus groups were created, and discussions were taped, transcribed and analysed for major themes. RESULTS: Focus groups findings have expanded the understanding of the intellectual and mental challenges faced by Israeli FPs caring for LBP patients and highlighted the many obstacles to implementing LBP guidelines. Physicians' decision-making, pertaining to LBP, functions on three levels simultaneously: the physicians' agenda based on familiarity with the guidelines; their need to remain grounded in the context of the specific patient-doctor relationship; and the constraints and demands of the physician's workplace, medical system and environment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an overall positive attitude towards LBP guideline implementation, FPs found it hard to come to terms with the conflicting dimensions of LBP patient care. The patient-doctor interaction determined the outcome of the encounter, whether it complied with the guidelines and whether the encounter leads to a healing process or to a vicious circle of unnecessary utilization of services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".