Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37789304›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023

One step at a time. Shaping consensus on research priorities and terminology in telehealth in musculoskeletal pain: an international modified e-Delphi study.

Junior V Fandim, Rana S Hinman, Cecilie K Øverås, Saurab Sharma, Joletta Belton, Vinícius C Oliveira, Blake F Dear, Romy Parker, Babita Ghai, Kim L Bennell and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

13 authors at 10 institutions in 6 countries.

Junior V FandimMasters and Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo (UNICID), Rua Cesário Galeno, 448, Tatuapé, CEP 03071-000, São Paulo, SP, Brasil. junior_fandim@hotmail.com.
Rana S HinmanDepartment of Physiotherapy, Centre for Health, Exercise & Sports Medicine, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Cecilie K ØveråsDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, NTNU - Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Saurab SharmaCentre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Joletta BeltonIASP Global Alliance of Partners for Pain Advocacy (GAPPA), Washington D.C, USA.
Vinícius C OliveiraPostgraduate Program in Rehabilitation and Functional Performance, Universidade Federal Dos Vales Do Jequitinhonha E Mucuri (UFVJM), Diamantina, MG, Brazil.
Blake F DearSchool of Psychological Sciences, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, Australia.
Romy ParkerDepartment of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Babita GhaiDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Kim L BennellDepartment of Physiotherapy, Centre for Health, Exercise & Sports Medicine, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Paulo FerreiraFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Charles Perkins Centre, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Jan HartvigsenDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Bruno T SaragiottoMasters and Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo (UNICID), Rua Cesário Galeno, 448, Tatuapé, CEP 03071-000, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
The University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Southern Denmark · DKMacquarie University · AUNeuroscience Research Australia · AUPost Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · INThe University of Sydney · AUUniversidade Cidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri · BRUniversity of Cape Town · ZAUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

Sao Paulo Research Foundation (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) Nº 2021/05477-6This study was partially funded by and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) Finance Code 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTelehealth has emerged as an alternative model for treatment delivery and has become an important component of health service delivery. However, there is inconsistency in the use of terminologies and a lack of research priorities in telehealth in musculoskeletal pain. The purpose of this international, multidisciplinary expert panel assembled in a modified three-round e-Delphi survey is to achieve a consensus on research priorities and for the standard terminology for musculoskeletal pain telehealth practice.

methodsIn this international modified e-Delphi survey, we invited an expert panel consisting of researchers, clinicians, consumer representatives, industry partners, healthcare managers, and policymakers to participate in a three-round e-Delphi. Expert panels were identified through the Expertscape website, PubMed database, social media, and a snowball approach. In Round 1, potential research priorities and terminologies were presented to panel members. Panel members rated the agreement of each research priority on a 5-point Likert scale and an 11-point numerical scale, and each terminology on a 5-point Likert scale for the "telehealth in musculoskeletal pain " field over rounds. At least 80% of the panel members were required to agree to be deemed a consensus. We analyzed the data descriptively and assessed the stability of the results using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test.

resultsWe performed an international e-Delphi survey from February to August 2022. Of 694 invited people, 160 panel members participated in the first round, 133 in the second round (83% retention), and 134 in the third round (84% retention). Most of the panel members were researchers 76 (47%), clinicians 57 (36%), and consumer representatives 9 (6%) of both genders especially from Brazil 31 (19%), India 22 (14%), and Australia 19 (12%) in the first round. The panel identified fourteen telehealth research priorities spanned topics including the development of strategies using information and communication technology, telehealth implementation services, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions, equity of telehealth interventions, qualitative research and eHealth literacy in musculoskeletal pain conditions from an initial list of 20 research priorities. The consensus was reached for "digital health" and "telehealth" as standard terminologies from an initial list of 37 terminologies.

conclusionAn international, multidisciplinary expert consensus recommends that future research should consider the 14 research priorities for telehealth musculoskeletal pain reached. Additionally, the terms digital health and telehealth as the most appropriate terminologies to be used in musculoskeletal telehealth research. REGISTER: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/tqmz2/ ).

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchMusculoskeletal PainTelemedicineDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleDelphi techniqueMusculoskeletal painResearch prioritiesTelehealthTelerehabilitationTerminology

Identifiers

PMID37789304
PMCPMC10546725
OpenAlexW4387299408

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.