Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30272177›Full record

ArticlePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2019

Adaptation and Implementation of the STarT Back Risk Stratification Strategy in a US Health Care Organization: A Process Evaluation.

Clarissa Hsu, Sarah Evers, Benjamin H Balderson, Karen J Sherman, Nadine E Foster, Katherin Estlin, Martin Levine, Dan Cherkin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Needs assessment for health service design for people with back pain in a hospital setting: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

8 authors.

Clarissa HsuKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Sarah EversKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Benjamin H BaldersonKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Karen J ShermanKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Nadine E FosterArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
Katherin EstlinOpen Door Fortuna Community Health Center, Fortuna, California.
Martin LevineAmazon, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA.
Dan CherkinKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Funding

Implementing Evidence-Based Treatments for Persistent Back Pain into Primary CareR21AT007326 · NCCIH · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI CHERKIN, DANIEL C. · 2012 to 2013
$434k
Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-015NCCIH NIH HHS R21 AT007326
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo support implementation of effective treatments for back pain that can be delivered to a range of people, we summarize learnings from our process evaluation of the MATCH trial's implementation of an adaptation of the STarT Back risk-stratified care model.

designOur logic model-driven evaluation focused primarily on qualitative data sources.

settingThis study took place in a US-based health care delivery system that had adapted and implemented the STarT Back stratified care approach. This was the first formal test of the strategy in a US setting.

methodsData collection included observation of implementation activities, staff/provider interviews, and post-training evaluation questionnaires. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis of qualitative data and descriptive statistics for questionnaire data.

resultsWe found that both primary care teams and physical therapists at intervention clinics gave the training high scores on evaluation questionnaires and reported in the interviews that they found the training engaging and useful. However, there was significant variation in the extent to which the risk stratification strategy was incorporated into care. Some primary care providers reported that the intervention changed their conversations with patients and increased their confidence in working with patients with back pain. Providers using the STarT Back tool did not change referral rates for recommended matched treatments.

conclusionsThese insights provide guidance for future efforts to adapt and implement the STarT Back strategy and other complex practice change interventions. They emphasize the need for primary care-based interventions to minimize complexity and the need for ongoing monitoring and feedback.

Indexed as

Back PainDelivery of Health CareHumansPain MeasurementPhysical TherapistsPrimary Health CareProcess Assessment, Health CareRisk AssessmentUnited StatesBack PainPrimary CareProcess EvaluationQuality ImprovementSTarT BackStratified Care

Identifiers

PMID30272177
PMCPMC6934440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.