Feasibility of the biopsychosocial primary care intervention ‘Back on Track’ for patients with chronic low back pain: a process and effect-evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Literature shows promising effects for interdisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation programs in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Not every patient needs an interdisciplinary rehabilitation trajectory provided in a secondary care setting. Patients with moderate complex psychosocial complaints might benefit from biopsychosocial interventions offered in primary care under supervision of a physician in rehabilitation medicine (i.e. biopsychosocial integrated care intervention). This study investigated the feasibility and effectiveness of such intervention in patients with CLBP with moderate complex psychosocial complaints.Methods mixed-method. Patients (aged 18–65 years, low back pain ≥12 weeks, moderate complex psychosocial complaints) received the intervention (4 individual sessions, 8 group sessions) provided by trained primary care physiotherapists. Physicians in rehabilitation medicine provided one consultation afterwards. Data from patients (n = 18), physicians (n = 4) and physiotherapists (n = 12) were used.Results Physiotherapists were satisfied with the training. Patient attendance was good for individual sessions, less for groups. Physiotherapists sufficiently delivered the intervention, although recruitment and contextual factors influenced delivery. Patients reported significantly reduced functional disability (Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale) post-treatment (−8.3, 95% CI −13.3 to −2.7) and at 3 months follow-up (−7.6, 95% CI −12.9 to −2.2).Conclusions A biopsychosocial integrated intervention is feasible and potentially effective in patients with CLBP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".