Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31841156›Full record

ArticlePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2020

Exploring Patients' Experiences of Internet-Based Self-Management Support for Low Back Pain in Primary Care.

Adam W A Geraghty, Lisa C Roberts, Rosie Stanford, Jonathan C Hill, Dinesh Yoganantham, Paul Little, Nadine E Foster, Elaine M Hay, Lucy Yardley

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Adam W A GeraghtyPrimary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Lisa C RobertsSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton & University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Rosie StanfordPrimary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Jonathan C HillArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Newcastle, UK.
Dinesh YogananthamPrimary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Paul LittlePrimary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Nadine E FosterArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Newcastle, UK.
Elaine M HayArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Newcastle, UK.
Lucy YardleySchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
University of Southampton · GBKeele University · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-011–015Department of Health PB-PG-1111-26080
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe explored patients' experiences of using Internet-based self-management support for low back pain (LBP) in primary care, with and without physiotherapist telephone guidance.

designExploratory descriptive qualitative study using thematic analysis, nested within a randomized feasibility trial.

methodsPatients with LBP who participated in a feasibility trial of the SupportBack Internet intervention (ISRCTN: 31034004) were invited to take part in semistructured telephone interviews after the three-month intervention period (a convenience sample from within the trial population). Fifteen participants took part (age range = 36-87 years, 66.7% female, characteristics representative of the trial population). Data were analyzed thematically.

resultsAnalysis resulted in the development of six themes (subthemes in parentheses): Perceptions of SupportBack's design (Clarity and ease of use, Variety and range of information provided, Need for specificity and flexibility), Engaging with the SupportBack intervention, Promoting positive thought processes (Reassurance, Awareness of self-management), Managing behavior with SupportBack (Motivation and goal setting, Using activity as a pain management strategy, Preferences for walking or gentle back exercises), Feeling supported by telephone physiotherapists (Provision of reassurances and clarity, Physiotherapists are motivating), Severity and comorbidity as barriers (Preexisting condition or severity acting as a barrier, Less useful for mild low back pain).

conclusionsThe Internet intervention SupportBack appeared to feasibly support self-management of LBP. Reassurance and ongoing support to implement behavioral changes were central to reported benefits. The addition of physiotherapist telephone support further enhanced the patient experience and the potential utility of the intervention.

Indexed as

Low Back PainPhysical TherapistsSelf-ManagementAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareBack PainBehaviorLow Back PainPhysical TherapyPrimary CarePsychologyTelehealth

Identifiers

PMID31841156
PMCPMC7553019
OpenAlexW2996021974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.