Healthcare Provider Perspectives on Access to Healthcare for Chronic Low Back Pain Across Urban, Rural, and Remote Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a debilitating condition that affects millions of people worldwide. Healthcare providers play a crucial role in improving access to care for patients with CLBP, but they face numerous challenges in doing so. This study focuses on healthcare provider perspectives of CLBP healthcare access. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 healthcare providers across a variety of disciplines who care for people with CLBP across Saskatchewan, Canada. A qualitative interpretive research approach with inductive thematic analysis was employed. Results: Years of experience ranged from 1 to >20 years. Participants represented 11 disciplines across urban, rural, and/or remote settings. Four overarching themes were identified: (1) Challenges for healthcare providers; (2) Anticipating and recognizing barriers and consequences for patients; (3) Facilitators for healthcare providers and patients; (4) Recommendations on improving accessibility to healthcare. Several barriers were identified for healthcare providers to provide optimal, evidence-based care across Saskatchewan, including patient complexity and past experiences, access to resources and coordinating care. Healthcare providers recognized barriers for patients, which ultimately influenced healthcare provider decisions and care provision. Coordinated care and funding were identified as facilitators that support healthcare provider recommendations of multidisciplinary care and improving provider education to enhance provision of care for chronic low back pain. Conclusion: Future care models should build on these identified factors, while considering clinical and community-specific contexts.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".