ArticleBMC family practice2016
General Practitioners' and patients' perceptions towards stratified care: a theory informed investigation.
Article in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03127826 (Validation of the STarT Back Screening Tool in the Primary Care Management of Low Back Pain in the Military Health System), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 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.
Validation of the STarT Back Screening Tool in the Primary Care Management of Low Back Pain in the Military Health System: A Randomized Trial of Risk-stratified vs. Usual Care
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Provision of Health Information to Australians With Polymyalgia Rheumatica: Patient Recall and Perceived Opportunities for Improvement.Musculoskeletal care · 2026Article
- Factors influencing referrals amongst allied health and medical practitioners managing people with musculoskeletal conditions in Australian primary care.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Article
- Patients' and clinicians' perspectives towards primary care consultations for shoulder pain: qualitative findings from the Prognostic and Diagnostic Assessment of the Shoulder (PANDA-S) programme.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments: a protocol for Development of a consultation intervention (iFraP-D).BMJ open · 2021Article
- Integrating clinician support with intervention design as part of a programme testing stratified care for musculoskeletal pain in general practice.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Cluster analysis of Canadian Armed Forces veterans living with chronic pain: Life After Service Studies 2016.Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2021Article
- The Necessity of Medical Humanities Education to General Practitioners: A Brief Review.Iranian journal of public health · 2020Review
- 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
- Matching treatment options for risk sub-groups in musculoskeletal pain: a consensus groups study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2019Article
- Physiotherapists' views of implementing a stratified treatment approach for patients with low back pain in Germany: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2018Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStratified primary care involves changing General Practitioners' (GPs) clinical behaviour in treating patients, away from the current stepped care approach to instead identifying early treatment options that are matched to patients' risk of persistent disabling pain. This article explores the perspectives of UK-based GPs and patients about a prognostic stratified care model being developed for patients with the five most common primary care musculoskeletal pain presentations. The focus was on views about acceptability, and anticipated barriers and facilitators to the use of stratified care in routine practice.
methodsFour focus groups and six semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with GPs (n = 23), and three focus groups with patients (n = 20). Data were analysed thematically; and identified themes examined in relation to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which facilitates comprehensive identification of behaviour change determinants. A critical approach was taken in using the TDF, examining the nuanced interrelationships between theoretical domains.
resultsFour key themes were identified: Acceptability of clinical decision-making guided by stratified care; impact on the therapeutic relationship; embedding a prognostic approach within a biomedical model; and practical issues in using stratified care. Whilst within each theme specific findings are reported, common across themes was the identified relationships between the theoretical domains of knowledge, skills, professional role and identity, environmental context and resources, and goals. Through analysis of these identified relationships it was found that, for GPs and patients to perceive stratified care as being acceptable, it must be seen to enhance GPs' knowledge and skills, not undermine GPs' and patients' respective identities and be integrated within the environmental context of the consultation with minimal disruption.
conclusionsFindings highlight the importance of taking into account the context of general practice when intervening to support GPs to make changes to their clinical behaviour. Findings will inform further stages of the research programme; specifically, the intervention format and content of support packages for GPs participating in a future randomised controlled trial (RCT). This study also contributes to the theoretical debate on how best to encourage clinical behaviour change in general practice, and the possible role of the TDF in that process.
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.