ArticlePloS one2015
General Practitioners Views of Implementing a Stratified Treatment Approach for Low Back Pain in Germany: A Qualitative Study.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk-based stratified primary care for common musculoskeletal pain presentations: qualitative findings from the STarT MSK cluster randomised controlled trial.BMC primary care · 2022Trial
- Prognostic ability of the German version of the STarT Back tool: analysis of 12-month follow-up data from a randomized controlled trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2019Trial
- Effect of Low Back Pain Risk-Stratification Strategy on Patient Outcomes and Care Processes: the MATCH Randomized Trial in Primary Care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Trial
- The Lived Experience of Pain Services: A Comparison of Service Users' and Service Providers' Experience of Irish Health Services.Pain research & management · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluation of a blended learning approach on stratified care for physiotherapy bachelor students.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Article
- User perspectives on systematic data collection regarding back pain managed in general practice - a qualitative study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Article
- Validation of the German version of the STarT-MSK-Tool: A cohort study with patients from physiotherapy clinics.PloS one · 2022Article
- Stratified primary care versus non-stratified care for musculoskeletal pain: qualitative findings from the STarT MSK feasibility and pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- Patients' Views on the Implementation Potential of a Stratified Treatment Approach for Low Back Pain in Germany: A Qualitative Study.Health services insights · 2020Article
- Article
- Physiotherapists' views of implementing a stratified treatment approach for patients with low back pain in Germany: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Meta-ethnography to understand healthcare professionals' experience of treating adults with chronic non-malignant pain.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Article
- General Practitioners' and patients' perceptions towards stratified care: a theory informed investigation.BMC family practice · 2016Article
- Evaluation of a risk-stratification strategy to improve primary care for low back pain: the MATCH cluster randomized trial protocol.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe STarT Back stratified primary care approach has demonstrated clinical and cost effectiveness in the UK, and is commonly used by General Practitioners (GPs). However, it remains unknown how this approach could be implemented into the German healthcare system. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the views and perceptions of German GPs in respect to using a stratified primary care for low back pain (LBP).
methodsA 90-minute think-tank workshop was conducted with 14 male and five female GPs, during which the STarT-Back-Screening-Tool (SBST) and related research evidence was presented. This was followed by two focus groups, based on a semi-structured interview guideline to identify potential implementation barriers and opportunities. Discussions were audiotaped, transcribed and coded using a content analysis approach.
resultsFor the three deductively developed main themes, 15 subthemes emerged: (1) application of the SBST, with the following subthemes: which health profession should administer it, patients known to the GP practice, the reason for the GP consultation, scoring the tool, the tool format, and the anticipated impact on GP practice; (2) psychologically informed physiotherapy, with subthemes including: provision by a physiotherapist, anticipated impact, the skills of physiotherapists, management of patients with severe psychosocial problems, referral and remuneration; (3) the management of low-risk patients, with subthemes including: concern about the appropriate advising health professional, information and media, length of consultation, and local exercise venues.
conclusionsThe attitudes of GPs towards stratified primary care for LBP indicated positive support for pilot-testing in Germany. However, there were mixed reactions to the ability of German physiotherapists to manage high-risk patients and handle their complex clinical needs. GPs also mentioned practical difficulties in providing extended advice to low-risk patients, which nevertheless could be addressed by involvement of specifically trained medical assistants.
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.