ArticleBMC health services research2014
A qualitative study of influences on older women's practitioner choices for back pain care.
Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Health-care utilisation for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based observational studies.Rheumatology international · 2019Pooled it
- Structural barriers and facilitators of accessing rehabilitation among adults aged 50 years and older with low back pain: a scoping review of the literature.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Assessing qualitative data richness and thickness: Development of an evidence-based tool for use in qualitative evidence synthesis.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Acceptability, values, and preferences of older people for chronic low back pain management; a qualitative evidence synthesis.BMC geriatrics · 2024Review
- Patient Choice After Referral to Physical Therapy for Lower Back Pain and Knee Osteoarthritis.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2023Article
- Influence of Initial Health Care Provider on Subsequent Health Care Utilization for Patients With a New Onset of Low Back Pain: A Scoping Review.Physical therapy · 2022Article
- Patients' use of physical therapy for lower back pain: A qualitative study.Musculoskeletal science & practice · 2021Article
- Article
- Identifying patients who access musculoskeletal physical therapy: a retrospective cohort analysis.Family practice · 2021Article
- Self-perceived functional ability and performance-based testing of physical function in older women with or without long-term back pain - results of the H70 study.BMC geriatrics · 2021Article
- The perceptions and experiences of osteopathic treatment among cancer patients in palliative care: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018Article
- Unconventional Practitioners' Causal Beliefs and Treatment Strategies for Chronic Low Back Pain in Rural Nigeria.Health services insights · 2018Article
- Severity of back pain may influence choice and order of practitioner consultations across conventional, allied and complementary health care: a cross-sectional study of 1851 mid-age Australian women.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2016Article
- What is the perceived impact of Alexander technique lessons on health status, costs and pain management in the real life setting of an English hospital? The results of a mixed methods evaluation of an Alexander technique service for those with chronic back pain.BMC health services research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBack pain is an increasingly prevalent health concern amongst Australian women for which a wide range of treatment options are available, offered by biomedical, allied health and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers. Although there is an emerging literature on patterns of provider utilisation, less is known about the reasons why women with back pain select their chosen practitioner. In this paper we explore the influences on back pain sufferers' decision-making about treatment seeking with practitioners for their most recent episode of back pain.
methodsDrawing on 50 semi-structured interviews with women aged 60-65 years from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH) who have chronic back pain, we focus on the factors which influence their choice of practitioner. Analysis followed a framework approach to qualitative content analysis, augmented by NVivo 9 qualitative data analysis software. Key themes were identified and tested for rigour through inter-rater reliability and constant comparison.
resultsThe women identified four predominant influences on their choice of practitioner for back pain: familiarity with treatment or experiences with individual practitioners; recommendations from social networks; geographical proximity of practitioners; and, qualifications and credentials of practitioners. The therapeutic approach or evidence-base of the practices being utilised was not reported by the women as central to their back pain treatment decision making.
conclusionsChoice of practitioner appears to be unrelated to the therapeutic approaches, treatment practices or the scientific basis of therapeutic practices. Moreover, anecdotal lay reports of effectiveness and the 'treatment experience' may be more influential than formal qualifications in guiding women's choice of practitioner for their back pain. Further work is needed on the interpersonal, collective and subjective underpinnings of practitioner choice, particularly over time, in order to better understand why women utilise certain practitioners for back pain.
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.