A Decision Support System to Enhance Self-Management of Low Back Pain: Protocol for the selfBACK Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Most patients with LBP encountered in primary care settings have nonspecific LBP, that is, pain with an unknown pathoanatomical cause. Self-management in the form of physical activity and strength and flexibility exercises along with patient education constitute the core components of the management of nonspecific LBP. However, the adherence to a self-management program is challenging for most patients, especially without feedback and reinforcement. Here we outline a protocol for the design and implementation of a decision support system (DSS), selfBACK, to be used by patients themselves to promote self-management of LBP. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of the selfBACK project is to improve self-management of nonspecific LBP to prevent chronicity, recurrence and pain-related disability. This is achieved by utilizing computer technology to develop personalized self-management plans based on individual patient data. METHODS: The decision support is conveyed to patients via a mobile phone app in the form of advice for self-management. Case-based reasoning (CBR), a technology that utilizes knowledge about previous cases along with data about the current patient case, is used to tailor the advice to the current patient, enabling a patient-centered intervention based on what has and has not been successful in previous patient cases. The data source for the CBR system comprises initial patient data collected by a Web-based questionnaire, weekly patient reports (eg, symptom progression), and a physical activity-detecting wristband. The effectiveness of the selfBACK DSS will be evaluated in a multinational, randomized controlled trial (RCT), targeting care-seeking patients with nonspecific LBP. A process evaluation will be carried out as an integral part of the RCT to document the implementation and patient experiences with selfBACK. RESULTS: The selfBACK project was launched in January 2016 and will run until the end of 2020. The final version of the selfBACK DSS will be completed in 2018. The RCT will commence in February 2019 with pain-related disability at 3 months as the primary outcome. The trial results will be reported according to the CONSORT statement and the extended CONSORT-EHEALTH checklist. Exploitation of the results will be ongoing throughout the project period based on a business plan developed by the selfBACK consortium. Tailored digital support has been proposed as a promising approach to improve self-management of chronic disease. However, tailoring self-management advice according to the needs, motivation, symptoms, and progress of individual patients is a challenging task. Here we outline a protocol for the design and implementation of a stand-alone DSS based on the CBR technology with the potential to improve self-management of nonspecific LBP. CONCLUSIONS: The selfBACK project will provide learning regarding the implementation and effectiveness of an app-based DSS for patients with nonspecific LBP. REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/9379.
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 | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.012 |
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".