ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Patient perspectives on low back pain treatment in primary care: a qualitative study of hopes, expectations, and experiences.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. 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.
- Implementation of an Australian helpline for low back pain: protocol of a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Exploration of How Uncertainty Tolerance, Emotion Regulation, and Hope Are Linked and Influenced in People with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Worked Example of a Social Constructivist Meta-Ethnography Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients' hopes and expectations for low back pain treatment influence their consultation experiences and treatment outcomes. These hopes and expectations may evolve over time, potentially leading to a shift in what patients consider important before and after a consultation. Understanding the distinction between hopes and expectations, and how they evolve is important for improving patient care. This study explored patients' hopes and expectations prior to LBP consultations and examined how these were reflected in their post-consultation experiences.
methodsWe employed a qualitative design consisting of individual semi-structured pre- and post-consultation interviews with patients seeking care for low back pain from general practitioners, physiotherapists, and chiropractors in Denmark. A convenience sample of 18 patients (10 females and 8 males) aged between 28 and 79 years were interviewed about their hopes and expectations before a consultation and their experiences immediately following the consultation. Data were analysed employing Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis.
resultsTwo themes with five subthemes were developed: (1) "Something needs to be done," which included subthemes related to life disruption, expectations of clinical assessment, and the clinicians as experts; and (2) "Experiences and emotional responses to the interaction with the clinician", highlighting the importance of trust and the personal attributes of clinicians. Patients initially sought urgent help and clarity regarding their condition but shifted their focus post-consultation to the relational dynamics and emotional engagement experienced during interactions with clinicians.
conclusionsThis study contributes to the understanding of how patients' hopes and expectations regarding low back pain consultations evolve, shifting from a focus on clinical actions and outcomes to valuing interpersonal relationships and emotional support from clinicians. Recognising these shifts can enhance clinician-patient interactions and improve overall patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.