Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35758625›Full record

ArticlePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2022

Implementation Initiatives to Improve Low Back Pain Care in Australia: A Scoping Review.

Nathalia Costa, Fiona M Blyth, Anita B Amorim, Sarika Parambath, Selvanaayagam Shanmuganathan, Carmen Huckel Schneider

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Nathalia CostaFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney School of Public Health, Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2271-5408
Fiona M BlythFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney School of Public Health, Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Anita B AmorimFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, School of Health Sciences, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sarika ParambathFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney School of Public Health, Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Selvanaayagam ShanmuganathanFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney School of Public Health, Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Carmen Huckel SchneiderFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney School of Public Health, Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis scoping review aimed to comprehensively review strategies for implementation of low back pain (LBP) guidelines, policies, and models of care in the Australian health care system.

methodsA literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, and Web of Science to identify studies that aimed to implement or integrate evidence-based interventions or practices to improve LBP care within Australian settings.

resultsTwenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies targeted primary care settings (n = 13). Other settings included tertiary care (n = 4), community (n = 4), and pharmacies (n = 3). One study targeted both primary and tertiary care settings (n = 1). Only 40% of the included studies reported an underpinning framework, model, or theory. The implementation strategies most frequently used were evaluative and iterative strategies (n = 14, 56%) and train and educate stakeholders (n = 13, 52%), followed by engage consumers (n = 6, 24%), develop stakeholder relationships (n = 4, 16%), change in infrastructure (n = 4, 16%), and support clinicians (n = 3, 12%). The most common implementation outcomes considered were acceptability (n = 11, 44%) and adoption (n = 10, 40%), followed by appropriateness (n = 7, 28%), cost (n = 3, 12%), feasibility (n = 1, 4%), and fidelity (n = 1, 4%). Barriers included time constraints, funding, and teamwork availability. Facilitators included funding and collaboration between stakeholders.

conclusionsImplementation research targeting LBP appears to be a young field, mostly focusing on training and educating stakeholders in primary care. Outcomes on sustainability and penetration of evidence-based interventions are lacking. There is a need for implementation research guided by established frameworks that consider interrelationships between organizational and system contexts beyond the clinician-patient dyad.

Indexed as

Low Back PainAustraliaDatabases, FactualHumansGuidelinesHealth Care SystemImplementationLow Back PainModels of CarePolicy

Identifiers

PMID35758625
PMCPMC9714528

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.