Quality and visual assessment of decision aids for patients with low back pain: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conduct a scoping review to identify existing low back pain (LBP) patient decision aids (PtDAs) and assess their use of visual aids. LBP PtDAs were identified using the Ottawa Health Research Institute (OHRI) PtDA database and PubMed. Three interdisciplinary reviewers assessed understandability and actionability using the Patient Educational Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), with readability evaluated via the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test. Six LBP PtDAs were found in the OHRI database and three in PubMed, for a total of nine. The mean PEMAT understandability score was 85%, while the mean PEMAT actionability was 68% (adequacy threshold for each section = 70%). Most used tables and scales (8/9), while fewer used pictographs (2/9), photographs (1/9), bar and pie charts (1/9), or illustrated diagrams (1/9). The mean reading level was Grade 5. Existing LBP PtDAs prioritise text over visuals and perform well on understandability and grade reading level, but less effectively on actionability. These findings highlight the need for interdisciplinary approaches to PtDA conceptualization, design, and evaluation to create tools that are relevant and impactful to patients and caregivers.
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 | 0.068 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".