Patients’ experiences with musculoskeletal spinal pain: A qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) spinal pain encapsulates various conditions including lumbar (low back), cervical (neck), and thoracic pain that significantly impact individual and global health. While clinical aspects of spinal pain have been well-studied, understanding patients' personal narratives and lived experiences remains essential for enhancing patient-centered care, improving treatment adherence, and informing healthcare policies. It provides deep insights into the impacts of spinal pain, guiding more effective and empathetic treatment approaches. This systematic review aims to synthesize qualitative evidence on patients' experiences with MSK spinal pain, providing insight into the challenges faced, coping strategies, daily life impacts, and healthcare interactions. The objective of this review is to synthesize the qualitative evidence regarding the lived experiences of patients with MSK spinal pain. METHODS: This systematic review will use a meta-aggregation approach to synthesize data from qualitative studies, that will be identified through a comprehensive search of electronic databases and supplemented by grey literature searches. Two independent reviewers will screen, identify, and extract data from eligible studies. In cases of disagreement, conflicts will be resolved by consulting a third reviewer. These same reviewers will then use the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) qualitative quality assessment tool to evaluate the methodological quality of the identified studies, with the derived scores informing the synthesis process, that will involve extracting each study's findings along with their supporting illustrations, then grouped into categories based on similarity in meaning. These categories will then be aggregated to form synthesized findings. IMPLICATIONS: Synthesized findings on patients' lived experiences with MSK spinal pain including key themes, patterns, and insights will be presented. By emphasizing patient narratives, the results of the review can contribute to the optimization of outcomes, and to enhance patient-provider relations and improve quality of care in MSK spinal health.
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 | 0.124 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.008 |
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".