ArticleDigital health
The engagement of healthcare providers in implementing the selfBACK randomised controlled trial - A mixed-methods process evaluation.
Article in Digital health. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: People with low back pain (LBP) are often recommended to self-manage their condition, but it can be challenging without support. Digital health interventions (DHIs) have shown promise in supporting self-management of LBP, but little is known about healthcare providers' (HCPs) engagement in implementing these. Aims: We aimed to examine HCPs' engagement in patient recruitment for the selfBACK app clinical trial and explore their perceptions of the app. Methods: In a mixed-methods design, we conducted a process evaluation alongside the selfBACK trial, triangulating quantitative data from trial recruitment logs and a vignette-based survey, and qualitative data from trial procedure documents, interviews with HCPs, and survey free-text responses. From 2019 to 2020, we recruited 57 HCPs from Norway and 39 health clinics in Denmark and collected quantitative and qualitative data in parallel. Results were integrated using displays. Results: Overall, 825 patients were recruited by the HCPs. The vignette-based survey showed high agreement among HCPs (n = 62) with the self-management plans generated by the app (84.1-88.9%) but also highlighted concerns about tailoring and content. Interviews with HCPs (n = 19) revealed challenges with recruitment due to busy schedules, competing tasks, and varying levels of interest and engagement in the study. Conclusions: The study identified factors that impact HCPs' engagement in recruiting patients for the selfBACK trial and highlighted overall positive views of the selfBACK app, although some concerns about the content and tailoring of the app were raised. Understanding HCP motivations and workload is crucial for the successful implementation of DHIs in clinical practice.
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.