Do the commonly used standard questionnaires measure what is of concern to patients with low back pain?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate whether questionnaires identified all the self-reported patient outcomes raised in focus groups. DESIGN: Mixed methods research combined with qualitative analysis of focus groups. SETTINGS: Physical therapy clinic in a teaching hospital in Brazil. SUBJECTS: A total of 27 patients (aged >18 years, mean age 55.2 years) with chronic non-specific low back pain. INTERVENTIONS: Three focus groups were conducted by the same investigator and analyzed by meaning unit condensation. The results obtained from the focus groups were codified according to the International Classification of Functioning. A similar process was adopted to codify the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale and the Oswestry Disability Index according to the International Classification of Functioning. The results of both coding processes were compared. RESULTS: In the analysis, seven main concepts were identified, comprising 77 meaning units. Only three meaning units were not linked to the International Classification of Functioning. Most of the codes present in the questionnaires and focus groups represent limitations to activities. Some codes were identified in the questionnaires that were not mentioned by the focus group participants. No questionnaire assessed environmental factors or problems related to specific parts of the body, and very few assessed body function, all of which were issues raised in the focus groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows that not all fields considered important by patients to their function are being evaluated, and emotional and contextual factors should be included in clinical assessments in order to fully understand patient need.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".