ArticlePhysical therapy2022
Reciprocity in Low Back Pain Care and Its Role in Power Dynamics: A Give-and-Take Approach.
Article in Physical therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrated manual therapies: IASP taskforce viewpoint.Pain reports · 2024Article
- Distress in the care of people with chronic low back pain: insights from an ethnographic study.Frontiers in sociology · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe shift toward patient-centered care in physical therapy fostered a deeper consideration of power-sharing in clinical interactions. Elements of reciprocity may enhance such power considerations between physical therapist and patients, but there has been little investigation into how reciprocity is enacted in physical therapy, its value, and how to improve it if required. This study investigates forms of reciprocity during physical therapist-patient interactions in low back pain (LBP) care with the aim of enhancing patient-centered approaches.
methodsThe qualitative design involved (1) ethnographic observations at a fee-for-service practice in Australia, and (2) reflexive discussions between researchers and participating clinicians. To understand reciprocity, the analysis drew from the concepts of "accepting'"(or "blocking") "offers" that have been previously applied to physical therapy interactions. The analysis is a sub-study using a larger dataset and analyses in which we partnered with physical therapists and people living with LBP.
resultsForty-nine observations and 13 reflexive discussions were undertaken with 42 people with LBP and 10 physical therapists. Analysis developed 3 themes suggesting that forms of reciprocity depended on physical therapists accepting or blocking patients' offers, inviting patients to make an offer, and offering personal stories. These elements of reciprocity are relevant to power-sharing during interactions and may impact patient-centered care.
conclusionOur results suggest that attending to forms of reciprocity can help physical therapists shift power in clinical interactions. By inviting and accepting "offers," physical therapists may build collaborative interactions, support individuals to guide the treatment narrative, and shift away from biomedically centered management approaches. Such recommendations create reciprocal environments that might enhance patient-centered care. IMPACT: This is one of the few studies to explore how reciprocity is enacted in interactions between physical therapists and s with LBP. Our findings highlight how engaging with the concept of reciprocity could assist with sharing power, improving physical therapist-patient relationships, and enhancing patient-centered care.
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.