ArticleBMJ open2017
Health practitioners' perceptions of adopting clinical prediction rules in the management of musculoskeletal pain: a qualitative study in Australia.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do expectations of recovery improve risk assessment for people with whiplash-associated disorders? Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Article
- An Interactive Website for Whiplash Management (My Whiplash Navigator): Process Evaluation of Design and Implementation.JMIR formative research · 2019Article
- Best Evidence Rehabilitation for Chronic Pain Part 4: Neck Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Methodological standards for the development and evaluation of clinical prediction rules: a review of the literature.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate health practitioners' understanding and practice behaviours with regards to clinical prediction rules (CPRs) and explore their perceptions of adopting a new whiplash CPR.
designQualitative study using six semistructured focus groups.
settingPrimary and secondary care in New South Wales and Queensland, Australia.
participantsPhysiotherapists (n=19), chiropractors (n=6) and osteopaths (n=3) were purposively sampled to include health practitioners who provide routine treatment to people with whiplash-associated disorders.
methodsFocus group discussions (n=6) were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic approach.
resultsHealth practitioners' understanding and use of CPRs were mixed. Clinicians considered components relating to acceptability ('whether I agree with it') and implementation ('how I'll use it') when deciding on whether to adopt a new CPR. Acceptability was informed by four themes: knowledge and understanding, CPR type, congruence and weighted value. Consideration of matters that promote implementation occurred once a CPR was deemed to be acceptable. Three themes were identified as potentially enhancing whiplash CPR implementation: the presence of an external driver of adoption, flexibility in how the CPR could be administered and guidance regarding communication of CPR output to patients.
conclusionsEducation on CPR purpose and fit with practice is needed to enhance the perceived acceptability of CPRs. Strategies that facilitate practitioner motivation, enable administrative flexibility and assist clinicians in communicating the results of the whiplash CPR could promote adoption of the whiplash CPR.
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.