MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415727084 · doi:10.1186/s12875-025-02998-5

“It’s hard to trust an individual, it’s easier to trust an image”—patients with low back pain want imaging as a means of coping with uncertainty

2025· article· en· W4415727084 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lynn Haslam‐Larmer, Kathleen E. Norman, Andrea M. Patey, Isabella M. Thomas, Michael Green, Jeremy Grimshaw, Jill A. Hayden, Jan Hartvigsen, Noah Ivers, Hazel Jenkins, Simon French

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Primary Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of SudburyDalhousie UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreOttawa HospitalQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCertaintyCoping (psychology)Low back painValue (mathematics)Patient care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines for low back pain recommend against routine imaging. Despite these guidelines, many patients still seek imaging. We sought to understand why patients with low back pain may want imaging, using a qualitative approach grounded in the Common-Sense Self-Regulation Model (CSSRM), a model that frames how patients' beliefs and actions are shaped by their past experiences and understanding of an illness. METHODS: We interviewed 28 patients from a larger study in Ontario, Canada. Participants were recruited by family physicians (n = 8), chiropractors (n = 10), and physiotherapists (n = 10), and most (82.1%) had previous episodes of low back pain. Participants completed intake questionnaires and semi-structured interviews that explored their experiences with low back pain care and perspectives on imaging. We analyzed the interview transcripts using the CSSRM. RESULTS: The CSSRM domains were represented in patients' narratives: Stimuli and Illness Representations, Coping Procedures, and Appraisal of Outcomes. Within Stimuli and Representations, patients described perceptions of the causes of their pain, and they associated obtaining an image with gaining a sense of control over their diagnosis. Within Coping Procedures, Cognitive Reappraisal emerged as the construct with the most discourse, reflecting how patients interpreted and reassessed their low back pain over time. Many patients expressed the belief that imaging would resolve uncertainty, validate their experience, and confirm that nothing serious had been overlooked. Patients emphasized that imaging would "show what's going on," or help them "feel taken seriously". Within Appraisal of Outcomes, patients described the self-limiting nature of their LBP; the limited discourse about emotional outcomes was often linked to frustrations and fears. The beliefs expressed in interviews were not consistent with participants' questionnaire answers from months previously, suggesting that beliefs may shift over time. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients believed imaging for low back pain was important to gain certainty in diagnosis and reassurance that treatment was appropriate. However, their beliefs about the value of imaging may not be stable over time, as they are influenced by ongoing experiences and reappraisals. To reduce unwarranted imaging, clinicians should consider providing consistent and contextualized messaging that meets the patient's ongoing illness experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Primary CareSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207