Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28521761›Full record

Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2017

A multimedia campaign to improve back beliefs in patients with non-specific low back pain: a process evaluation.

Arnela Suman, Frederieke G Schaafsma, Jiman Bamarni, Maurits W van Tulder, Johannes R Anema

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A systematic review on self-management education campaigns for back pain.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2019
    Review
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.

Arnela SumanAmsterdam Public Health research institute, Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Centre, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0656-490X
Frederieke G SchaafsmaAmsterdam Public Health research institute, Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Centre, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. f.schaafsma@vumc.nl.
Jiman BamarniFaculty of Earth & Life Sciences, Department of Health Sciences, Student Health Sciences at the VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Maurits W van TulderAmsterdam Public Health research institute, Faculty of Earth & Life Sciences, Department of Health Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannes R AnemaAmsterdam Public Health research institute, Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Centre, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent and costly disorders worldwide. To reduce its burden in the Netherlands, implementation of a multidisciplinary guideline for LBP was supported by a multifaceted eHealth campaign for patients with LBP. The current study aims 1) to evaluate whether the implementation strategy was performed as planned; 2) to assess the feasibility, barriers and facilitators of the patient based eHealth campaign; 3) to gain insight into the satisfaction and experiences of patients with various ethnic backgrounds with the implementation strategy and to make a comparison between them; and 4) to explore the association between exposure to and satisfaction with the implementation strategy.

methodsThis process evaluation was performed using the Linnan and Steckler framework, and used a mixed methods approach for data collection and analysis. The relationship between satisfaction of patients and exposure to the strategy was statistically examined. Semi-structured interviews were analysed using qualitative data analysis methods.

resultsTwo hundred and fourteen patients participated in the quantitative, and 44 in the qualitative analysis. Most were female and had a high level of education. Many patients did not use the campaign at all or only once, and those that did rated it as reasonable. Patient satisfaction with the campaign increased significantly with an increase in its use. Qualitative analysis showed that four main themes played a role in campaign rating and use: satisfaction with intervention components, perceived benefits of the intervention, usage of the intervention, and satisfaction with the medium used.

conclusionThis process evaluation showed that the eHealth campaign was used only by a small proportion of patients with non-specific LBP. It seemed that the campaign was offered to the patients too late, that the lay-out of the campaign did not meet patient needs, and that healthcare providers rarely discussed the campaign with their patients, while involvement of those providers seemed to improve trustworthiness of the campaign and increase its usage. It is important to invest effort into healthcare providers to motivate patients to use eHealth intervention and to tailor strategies better to the needs of users.

trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR4329 . Registered December 20th, 2013.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionQualitative ResearchAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedMultimediaNetherlandsProcess Assessment, Health CareTelemedicineYoung AdultAttitude to HealtheHealthGuidelines as topicImplementationLow back painMultimediaPatient SatisfactionProcess Assessment (Health Care)

Identifiers

PMID28521761
PMCPMC5437407

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.