ArticleBMC health services research2024
A scoping review on implementation processes and outcomes of models of care for low back pain in primary healthcare.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo address the societal burden of low back pain (LBP), several health systems have adopted Models of Care (MoCs). These evidence-informed models aim for consistent care and outcomes. However, real-world applications vary, with each setting presenting unique challenges and nuances in the primary healthcare landscape. This scoping review aims to synthesize the available evidence regarding the use of implementation theories, models or frameworks, context-specific factors, implementation strategies and outcomes reported in MoCs targeting LBP in primary healthcare.
methodsMEDLINE(Pubmed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature databases were searched. Eligible records included MoCs for adults with LBP in primary healthcare. Two reviewers independently extracted data concerning patient-related, system-related and implementation-related outcomes. The implementation processes, including guiding theories, models or frameworks, barriers and facilitators to implementation and implementation strategies were also extracted. The data were analysed through a descriptive qualitative content analysis and synthesized via both quantitative and qualitative approaches.
resultsEleven MoCs (n = 29 studies) were included. Implementation outcomes were assessed in 6 MoCs through quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Acceptability and appropriateness were the most reported outcomes. Only 5 MoCs reported underlying theories, models, or frameworks. Context-specific factors influencing implementation were identified in 3 MoCs. Common strategies included training providers, developing educational materials, and changing record systems. Notably, only one MoC included a structured multifaceted implementation strategy aligned with the evaluation of patient, organizational and implementation outcomes.
conclusionsThe implementation processes and outcomes of the MoCs were not adequately reported and lacked sufficient theoretical support. As a result, conclusions about the success of implementation cannot be drawn, as the strategies employed were not aligned with the outcomes. This study highlights the need for theoretical guidance in the development and implementation of MoCs for the management of LBP in primary healthcare. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registries ( https://osf.io/rsd8x ).
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.