Patient lumbar discectomy journey (DiscJourn) in the UK: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into patients' views, perceptions, experiences and expectations postlumbar discectomy. METHODS: A qualitative study using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) purposively recruited patients undergoing lumbar discectomy at one UK spinal centre. Purposive criteria included age, sex, ethnicity, symptom duration, work/sick leave, education level and co-existing psychological issues. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using a patient co-constructed topic guide. Interview transcriptions were analysed in accordance with IPA. Strategies enhancing trustworthiness included suspension of judgements and presuppositions, reflexivity, iterative coding process and critique from co-investigators. RESULTS: Data from 14 participants (eight elective, 6 emergency surgery) informed four themes. The theme ready to move forwards was characterised by high satisfaction with post-operative improvement, positivity and optimism, with readiness to work towards personal goals. The theme post-operative fear and uncertainty was characterised by reflections on pre-operative difficulties fuelling fear about potential recurrence and long-term impacts. The theme of advice and guidance considered important was characterised by the expectation and value of support provided (verbal, written); instances of negative influences from healthcare interactions and access to unregulated patient information sources suggest scope for future improvement. The final theme, heterogeneity in peri-operative needs, was characterised by variation in depth/access to patient information, perceived post-operative support and wide-ranging preoperative activity/fitness. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery offers physical and psychosocial changes which could be better harnessed to positively influence recovery through high quality verbal/written communication. Peri-operative advice and guidance was valued; while this was sufficient for some, personalised rehabilitation should be available owing to the identified heterogeneity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".