Trial reportPloS one2021
Optimizing management of low back pain through the pain and disability drivers management model: A feasibility trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03949179 (Optimizing Management of Low Back Pain Through the Pain and Disability Drivers Management Model), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Optimizing Management of Low Back Pain Through the Pain and Disability Drivers Management Model: Study Protocol for a Feasibility Trial
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Risk factors of decisional conflict among people living with chronic pain identified through a pan-Canadian survey.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Rehabilitation Management of Neck Pain-Development of a Diagnostic Framework Based on the Pain and Disability Drivers Management Model.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Enrollment, adherence and retention rates among musculoskeletal disorders rehabilitation practitioners in knowledge translation studies: a systematic review and meta-regression.Implementation science communications · 2024Review
- Investigating force-time characteristics of prone thoracic SMT and self-reported patient outcome measures: a feasibility study.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2023Article
- Decisional needs assessment for patient-centred pain care in Canada: the DECIDE-PAIN study protocol.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Establishing Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (Hindi Version) in Chronic Low Back Pain Patients Undergoing Multimodal Physical Therapy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Development and content validity of a rating scale for the pain and disability drivers management model.Archives of physiotherapy · 2022Article
- Back pain treatment: a new perspective.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSelf-reported levels of disability in individuals with low back pain (LBP) have not improved in the last decade. A broader perspective and a more comprehensive management framework may improve disability outcomes. We recently developed and validated the Low Back Pain and Disability Drivers Management (PDDM) model, which aims to identify the domains driving pain and disability to guide clinical decisions. The objectives of this study were to determine the applicability of the PDDM model to a LBP population and the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic trial, as well as to explore clinicians' perceived acceptability of the PDDM model's use in clinical settings.
methodsThis study was an one-arm prospective feasibility trial. Participants included physiotherapists working with a population suffering from LBP and their patients aged 18 years or older presenting with a primary complaint of LBP that sought a new referral and deemed fit for rehabilitation from private and public clinical settings. Clinicians participated in a one-day workshop on the integration of the PDDM model into their clinical practice, and were asked to report various LBP-related outcomes via self-reported questionnaires (i.e., impact of pain on physical function, nervous system dysfunctions, cognitive-emotional factors, work disabilities) at baseline and at six-week follow-up. Physiotherapists' acceptability of the use of the PDDM model and appreciation of the training were assessed via semi-structured phone interviews. Analyses focused on a description of the model's applicability to a LBP population, feasibility outcomes and acceptability measures.
resultsApplicablity of the PDDM model was confirmed since it successfully established the profile of patients according to the elements of each categories, and each of the 5 domains of the model was represented among the study sample. Trial was deemed feasible contingent upon few modifications as our predefined success criteria for the feasibility outcomes were met but feasibility issues pertaining to data collection were highlighted. Twenty-four (24) clinicians and 61 patients were recruited within the study's timeframe. Patient's attrition rate (29%) and clinicians' compliance to the study protocol were adequate. Clinicians' perceived acceptability of the use of the model in clinical settings and their appreciation of the training and online resources were both positive. Recommendations to improve the model's integration in clinical practice, content of the workshop and feasibility of data collection methods were identified for future studies. A positive effect for all patients' reported outcome measures were also observed. All outcome measures except for the PainDetect questionnaire showed a statistically significant reduction post-intervention (p<0.05).
conclusionThese findings provide preliminary evidence of the potential of the PDDM model to optimize LBP management as well as conducting a future larger-scale pragmatic trial to determine its effectiveness.
trial registrationClinicaltrial.gov: NCT03949179.
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.