ArticleArchives of physical medicine and rehabilitation2018
A Cross-Sectional Study Assessing Treatment Preference of People With Chronic Low Back Pain.
Article in Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2022Guideline
- Attributes Underlying Non-surgical Treatment Choice for People With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Mixed Studies Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2021Pooled it
- Treatment preference changes after exposure to treatment in adults with chronic low back pain.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2023Trial
- An everyday-task-focused, strategy-based educational program for informal dementia carers: a feasibility and pilot study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Patients' real-world engagement with movement pattern modifications for nonarthritic hip-related pain.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a psoriasis treatment acceptability measure through group concept mapping.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2023Article
- CAPER: patient preferences to inform nonsurgical treatment of chronic low back pain: a discrete-choice experiment.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2023Article
- The feasibility and acceptability of an app-based cognitive strategy training programme for older people.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- A Semantic-Based Cognitive Training Programme on Everyday Activities: A Feasibility and Acceptability Study among Cognitively Healthy Older Adults.Occupational therapy international · 2023Article
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
Abstract
objectiveTo assess treatment preference and attributes of 2 exercise-based treatments for people with chronic low back pain (LBP).
designCross-sectional study.
settingAcademic research setting.
participantsIndividuals (N=154) with chronic LBP.
interventionsNot applicable.
main outcome measuresParticipants completed a treatment preference assessment (TPA) measure that described 2 treatments for chronic LBP (strength and flexibility [SF] and motor skill training [MST]). Participants rated each treatment on 4 attributes: effectiveness, acceptability/logicality, suitability/appropriateness, and convenience. An overall score for each treatment was calculated as the mean of the 4 attribute ratings. The participants indicated either (1) no treatment preference or (2) preference for SF or MST.
resultsOne hundred four participants (67.5%) had a treatment preference; of those, 95 (91.3%) preferred SF and 9 (8.7%) preferred MST. The SF preference group rated SF higher than MST overall and on all attributes (all Ps <.01, ds ranged from .48-1.07). The MST preference group did not rate the treatments differently overall or on any of the attributes (all Ps >.05, ds ranged from .43-.66). Convenience of SF (P=.05, d=.79) and effectiveness (d=1.20), acceptability/logicality (d=1.27), and suitability/appropriateness (d=1.52) of MST (all Ps <.01) were rated differently between the 2 preference groups.
conclusionsWhen presented with 2 treatment options, a majority of patients preferred SF over MST. Convenience was a particularly important attribute affecting preference. Assessing treatment preference and attributes prior to treatment initiation allows the clinician to identify factors that may need to be addressed to enhance adherence to, and outcomes of, treatment.
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.