ReviewArthritis care & research2014
Design and development of a decision support package for low back pain.
Review in Arthritis care & research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Primum non nocere: shared informed decision making in low back pain--a pilot cluster randomised trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2014Trial
- Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Chronic Pain Communication in Advanced Kidney Disease.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026Article
- People's Experience of Shared Decision Making in Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Development of sexual health promotion package in pregnancy: The Delphi method.Journal of education and health promotion · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a decision support package for people with low back pain (LBP) referred for physiotherapy.
methodsWe used a program of exploratory work, including literature reviews, a Delphi study, a nominal group with physiotherapists, focus groups with patients, and secondary analysis of existing interview data.
resultsWe developed an information booklet describing the evidence-based treatment modalities available in a physiotherapy department. This includes data on likely benefits and risks and how the intervention is delivered. The booklet specifically addresses questions identified as important in our exploratory work. Space is provided for patients to note down the pros and cons of each treatment and what matters to them when choosing treatments. The patient is subsequently directed to a section that explores any gaps in knowledge, values, support, and choice before finally clarifying if a treatment decision is possible. At this stage they are encouraged to note down any questions or concerns they have to be discussed at the first physiotherapy consultation. This overall package includes patient material in the form of a booklet posted prior to their consultation, plus the enhanced consultation with the specially trained physiotherapist. Patients then receive their chosen treatment. In addition we developed a training package for physiotherapists that explains the content of the booklet and supports them in using informed, shared decision making in their consultation.
conclusionThis package has the potential to improve effectiveness of treatments and patient satisfaction for LBP by facilitating patient choice and therefore matching patients more effectively to different treatments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.