A systematic review of the effectiveness of mass media campaigns for the management of low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of mass media campaigns for the management of LBP on beliefs of the general public and health care providers, LBP-related disability, health utilization, and LBP clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched from inception to December 17, 2019. Any studies evaluating the effectiveness of mass media campaigns for LBP were eligible. Primary outcome was general public LBP beliefs, while secondary outcomes included health care provider beliefs as well as LBP-related disability, health utilization, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The search resulted in 4,164 unique records, of which 18 studies were included. These 18 studies predominantly used quasi-experimental methods to evaluate seven LBP mass media campaigns conducted in seven countries. All studies evaluating LBP beliefs in the general public detected positive effects. Health care provider beliefs also consistently improved. Results for behavioural outcomes (disability behaviour and health utilization) were mixed and appeared dependent on campaign characteristics and local context. CONCLUSIONS: Mass media campaigns for LBP appear effective for improving beliefs of the general public and health care providers. REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42018116797IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONMass media campaigns about low back pain (LBP) appear effective for improving beliefs of the general public and health care providers, aligning beliefs with current evidence and self-management principles.Rehabilitation professionals should be aware of and seek to support public education initiatives in their communities related to LBP and other disabling health conditions.Rehabilitation professionals can highlight and reinforce campaign messages when providing education and reassurance to individual patients.Several campaign resources (i.e., posters, pamphlets, electronic resources, etc.) are available for rehabilitation professionals to use in their efforts to reduce disability related to LBP.
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 | 0.015 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".