ArticleHealth (London, England : 1997)2025
Navigating uncertainty in low back pain care through an ethic of openness: Learnings from a post-critical analysis.
Article in Health (London, England : 1997), 2025. 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.
- 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
- 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Theoretical and practical guidance on how to navigate uncertainties in healthcare are scarce. Here, we draw from Gibson's ethic of openness to explore clinicians' experiences navigating uncertainty with individuals who experience low back pain (LBP) and provide guidance on avenues for navigating uncertainty in LBP and healthcare more broadly. Our analysis suggests that clinicians practice within different philosophical commitments when providing care for individuals with LBP, with some of them aligning with a (post)positivist approach with pre-determined endpoints and others an ethic of openness, with no fixed endpoints and consideration of multiple options and perspectives. Based on our analysis, an ethic of openness may help to surface these philosophical commitments, creating space for possibilities other than denying uncertainty and oversimplifying (evidence-based) practice. We argue that an ethic of openness may assist clinicians to navigate uncertainty in fruitful ways - embracing uncertainty, engaging in reflexivity and creativity, moving clinicians to directions that are likely to best meet the needs of patients.
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.