ArticleBMJ public health2025
'Overhaul Medicare and perhaps train us better': a qualitative study of primary care general practitioners' perspectives on how to implement the low back pain clinical care standards.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In September 2022, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare released the Low Back Pain Clinical Care Standards ('Care Standard'). We aimed to explore general practitioners' (GPs') perspectives on how the Care Standard can be implemented, with a view to identifying what strategies could be used to do so. Methods: This qualitative study is underpinned by a critical realist philosophy. We interviewed 16 GPs across Australia with experience working with patients who present with low back pain (LBP). Interview questions were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, and interview data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: We identified three themes: theme 1-'I have my own guidelines and ways of doing things'-guidelines and standards are not relevant for experienced GPs' captures the perceived unnecessariness of seeking advice from guidelines and standards for LBP; theme 2-I agree with the standards but the system, clinicians and patients hinder my ability to enact them-reports factors impacting the will and ability of clinicians to implement the standards in practice; theme 3-Change the system and train us better-discusses potential strategies to implement the Care Standard: changing funding and infrastructure (eg, improving GPs' reimbursement for time spent, investing in publicly funded allied health services); offering training and education (eg, continuing professional development courses, improving communication training in undergraduate courses), developing stakeholder relationships (eg, primary health networks, Health Pathways), supporting clinicians through interactive assistance (eg, reminders, embedding assessment tools in existing systems), engaging/educating patients and using evaluative strategies such as auditing. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the multidimensional nature of the challenges GPs face, and the strategies they suggest, calls for a multimodal and integrated approach to implementing the Care Standards, including system changes.
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.