A Qualitative Study of Doctors of Chiropractic in a Nova Scotian Practice-based Research Network: Barriers and Facilitators to the Screening and Management of Psychosocial Factors for Patients With Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess chiropractors' awareness of clinical practice guidelines for low back pain and to identify barriers and facilitators to the screening and management of psychosocial factors in patients with low back pain. METHODS: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework with 10 Nova Scotian chiropractors who were members of a practice-based research network. RESULTS: The participants correctly identified what the guidelines generally recommend and described the value of psychosocial factors; however, none of the participants could name specific clinical practice guidelines for low back pain. We identified 6 themes related to barriers and facilitators for chiropractors screening and managing psychosocial factors. The themes revolved around the participants' desire to fulfill patients' anatomy-focused treatment expectations and a perceived lack of training for managing psychosocial factors. Participants had concerns about going beyond the chiropractic scope of practice, and they perceived a lack of practical psychosocial screening and management resources. Social factors, such as the influence of other health care practitioners, were reported as both barriers and facilitators to screening and managing psychosocial factors. CONCLUSIONS: The participants in this study reported that they mostly treated with an anatomical and biomechanical focus and that they did not always address psychosocial factors identified in their patients with low back pain. Although these findings are limited to Nova Scotian chiropractors, the barriers identified appeared to be potentially modifiable and could be considered in other groups. Low-cost interventions, such as continuing education using evidence-informed behavior change techniques, could be considered to address these barriers.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".