Patients’ Experiences Participating Within an Interdisciplinary Primary Care Program for Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common recommendation to improve the management of low back pain (LBP) is the use of interdisciplinary teams. However, many challenges remain in establishing interdisciplinary care, particularly in community-based primary care settings. This study explored patients' experiences with interdisciplinary care for LBP using an applied phenomenological research approach. Semistructured open-ended interviews were conducted with fifteen adults enrolled in a 6-month interdisciplinary LBP program within an integrated care network. The analysis included detailed descriptions of participants' experiences and interpretations by the researchers of the main themes: (i) challenging start-"It's intimidating," (ii) desire for flexibility-"I didn't need as much," (iii) better collaboration-"They are all together," (iv) grasping the pain issue-"They helped," (v) care was responsive to needs and experience-"Always centered on me, not general," (vi) meanings of recovery-"I'm able to function." Participants viewed the interdisciplinary LBP program as the culmination of a long journey toward recovery. The findings identified as important to patients contribute to our understanding of how to optimize patient-centered care for individuals living with chronic pain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".