Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36580365›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

The Acceptance, Usability, and Utility of a Web Portal for Back Pain as Recommended by Primary Care Physicians: Qualitative Interview Study With Patients.

Christian Schlett, Nicole Röttele, Piet van der Keylen, Andrea Christina Schöpf-Lazzarino, Miriam Klimmek, Mirjam Körner, Kathrin Schnitzius, Sebastian Voigt-Radloff, Andy Maun, Mario Sofroniou and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christian SchlettSection of Health Care Research and Rehabilitation Research, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7237-3477
Nicole RötteleInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9514-4960
Piet van der KeylenInstitute of General Practice, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4191-7192
Andrea Christina Schöpf-LazzarinoSection of Health Care Research and Rehabilitation Research, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4705-2938
Miriam KlimmekSection of Health Care Research and Rehabilitation Research, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7828-9586
Mirjam KörnerInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7719-278X
Kathrin SchnitziusInstitute of General Practice, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9670-9465
Sebastian Voigt-RadloffInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2745-3328
Andy MaunInstitute of General Practice / Family Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9213-6583
Mario SofroniouInstitute of General Practice / Family Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3522-2693
Erik Farin-GlattackerSection of Health Care Research and Rehabilitation Research, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6867-0316
University of Freiburg · DEFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn ever-increasing number of patients seek health information via the internet. However, there is an overabundance of differing, often low-quality information available, while a lack of health literacy makes it difficult for patients to understand and assess the quality and trustworthiness of the information at hand. The web portal tala-med was thus conceived as an evidence-based, up-to-date, and trustworthy information resource for lower back pain (LBP), which could be used by primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients during and following consultations for LBP. The current evidence demonstrates that patients with LBP could benefit from web portals. However, the use of such portals by patients remains low, thus limiting their effectiveness. Therefore, it is important to explore the factors that promote or hinder the use of web portals and investigate how patients perceive their usability and utility.

objectiveIn this study, we investigated the acceptance, usability, and utility of the web portal tala-med from the patient perspective.

methodsThis qualitative study was based on telephone interviews with patients who had access to the web portal tala-med from their PCP. We used a semistructured interview guide that consisted of questions about the consultation in which patients were introduced to tala-med, in addition to questions regarding patient perceptions, experiences, and utilization of tala-med. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed through framework analysis.

resultsA total of 32 half-hour interviews were conducted with 16 female and 16 male patients with LBP. We identified 5 themes of interest: the use of tala-med by PCPs during the consultation, the use of tala-med by patients, its usability, added values derived from its use, and the resultant effects of using tala-med. PCPs used tala-med as an additional information resource for their patients and recommended the exercises. The patients appreciated these exercises and were willing to use tala-med at home. We also identified factors that promoted or hindered the use of tala-med by patients. Most patients rated tala-med positively and considered it a clear, comprehensible, trustworthy, and practical resource. In particular, the trustworthiness of tala-med was seen as an advantage over other information resources. The possibilities offered by tala-med to recap and reflect on the contents of consultations in a time-flexible and independent manner was perceived as an added value to the PCP consultation.

conclusionsTala-med was well accepted by patients and appeared to be well suited to being used as an add-on to PCP consultations. Patient perception also supports its usability and utility. Tala-med may therefore enrich consultations and assist patients who would otherwise be unable to find good-quality web-based health information on LBP. In addition, our findings support the future development of digital health platforms and their successful use as a supplement to PCP consultations. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12875-019-0925-8.

Indexed as

adherencedigital health interventioneHealthframework analysisgeneral practicelower back painmobile phonepatient educationprimary carequalitative researchweb-based health information

Identifiers

PMID36580365
PMCPMC9837709
OpenAlexW4313313028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.