ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2024
Provider perception of presentations with nonspecific back pain in the emergency department and primary care practices: a semi-structured interview study.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing numbers of patients treated in the emergency departments pose challenges to delivering timely and high-quality care. Particularly, the presentation of patients with low-urgency complaints consumes resources needed for patients with higher urgency. In this context, patients with non-specific back pain (NSBP) often present to emergency departments instead of primary care providers. While patient perspectives are well understood, this study aims to add a provider perspective on the diagnostic and therapeutic approach for NSBP in emergency and primary care settings.
methodsIn a qualitative content analysis, we interviewed seven Emergency Physicians (EP) and nine General Practitioners (GP) using a semi-structured interview to assess the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to patients with NSBP in emergency departments and primary care practices. A hypothetical case of NSBP was presented to the interviewees, followed by questions on their diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Recruitment was stopped after reaching saturation of the qualitative content analysis. Reporting this work follows the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist.
resultsEPs applied two different strategies for the workup of NSBP. A subset pursued a guideline-compliant diagnostic approach, ruling out critical conditions and managing pain without extensive diagnostics. Another group of EPs applied a more extensive approach, including extensive diagnostic resources and specialist consultations. GPs emphasized physical examinations and stepwise treatment, including scheduled follow-ups and a better knowledge of the patient history to guide diagnostics and therapy. Both groups attribute ED visits for NSBP to patient related and healthcare system related factors: lack of understanding of healthcare structures, convenience, demand for immediate diagnostics, and fear of serious conditions. Furthermore, both groups reported an ill-suited healthcare infrastructure with insufficiently available primary care services as a contributing factor.
conclusionsThe study highlights a need for improving guideline adherence in younger EPs and better patient education on the healthcare infrastructure. Furthermore, improving access and availability of primary care services could reduce ED visits of patients with NSBP.
trial registrationNo trial registration needed.
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.