Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23977178›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2013

Translating evidence for low back pain management into a consumer-focussed resource for use in community pharmacies: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Helen Slater, Andrew M Briggs, Kim Watkins, Jason Chua, Anne J Smith

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. How best to use and evaluate Patient Information Leaflets given during a consultation: a systematic review of literature reviews.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Helen SlaterSchool of Physiotherapy, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia ; Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Andrew M Briggs
Kim Watkins
Jason Chua
Anne J Smith

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis cluster-randomised controlled trial determined the effectiveness of an evidence-based, pamphlet intervention in improving low back pain (LBP)-related beliefs among pharmacy consumers.

methodsTHIRTY FIVE COMMUNITY PHARMACIES WERE RANDOMISED TO THREE GROUPS: pamphlet+education intervention [n = 11]; pamphlet only intervention [n = 11]; control: usual care [n = 13]. Eligibility requirements for clusters included: community-based pharmacies and proprietor participation consent. Pharmacy consumers (N = 317) aged 18-65 years currently experiencing LBP participated. Intervention group allocation depended on the pharmacy attended. Individual-level outcomes were measured at pre-intervention (T0), at two (T1) and eight (T2) weeks post-intervention and included beliefs about LBP [Back Pain Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ); Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ)]. Secondary outcomes included pain severity, activity impairment and pamphlet perceived usefulness. Blinding to group allocation included primary investigators, outcome assessors and the statistician. Pharmacy staff and consumers were un-blinded.

resultsOf 35 pharmacies recruited (317 consumers), no clusters were lost to follow-up. Follow-up was available for n = 24 at 2 weeks only; n = 38 at 8 weeks only; n = 148 at both time points, with n = 148+24+38 = 210 analysed (107 excluded: no follow up). Adjusting for baseline scores demonstrated no significant differences in beliefs (2 or at 8 weeks) between pamphlet (with or without education) versus control, or between 'pamphlet with' versus 'without' education. Work-related fear (FABQ) was significantly lower in consumers receiving pamphlet (with or without education) versus control (difference -2.3, 95%CI: -4.4 to -0.2). There was no significant difference between "pamphlet with" versus "pamphlet without" groups. Consumers receiving the "pamphlet with" reported greater perceived usefulness than consumers receiving the "pamphlet without" (difference 0.9 (95%CI: 0.0 to 1.8)).

conclusionCommunity pharmacies provided a feasible primary care portal for implementing evidence-based information. The associated improvement in work-related LBP-beliefs for consumers receiving the pamphlet suggests this simple intervention may be a useful component of care.

trial registrationACTR.org.au ACTRN12611000053921.

Indexed as

Pain ManagementPharmaciesAdolescentAdultAgedCluster AnalysisConsumer Health InformationEvidence-Based MedicineFearFemaleHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPatient Outcome Assessment

Identifiers

PMID23977178
PMCPMC3748095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.