ArticlePloS one2026
A protocol for using rapid qualitative techniques to incorporate multi-level stakeholder feedback in a pragmatic clinical trial of mindfulness for chronic low back pain.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
introductionEngaging community members and context experts is increasingly recognized as key to developing research that is responsive to community needs. Here, we describe a protocol for incorporating stakeholder feedback using rapid qualitative techniques into OPTIMUM (Optimizing Pain Treatment In Medical settings Using Mindfulness), a pragmatic clinical trial comparing a telemedicine-delivered mindfulness-based stress reduction intervention to usual care to address chronic low back pain. The aim of this stakeholder feedback supplement to the OPTIMUM parent trial is to consider many viewpoints regarding recruitment, retention, facilitation, delivery, sustainability, and dissemination of this program which are critical to understand before it can be successfully implemented.
methodsOur team developed a multi-faceted approach to collecting feedback from representatives of three levels of influence: individuals, communities, and policy. We plan to conduct focus groups with study participants from both the intervention (MBSR) and usual care groups. We plan to conduct one-time semi-structured interviews with a diverse set of people with varied roles and perspectives (e.g., clinic personnel, health care system leadership, mindfulness instructors, patient pain advocacy groups, policy advocates). We will assemble a Community Advisory Board (CAB) to convene regularly throughout the project. Transcripts from interviews, focus groups, and meeting notes will be analyzed using rapid qualitative methods to facilitate timely incorporation of feedback into the trial. In-depth thematic content analysis will be conducted subsequently. DISCUSSION: Partnering with communities who are historically underrepresented in clinical research under the guidance of principles such as equity, inclusion, trust, and accountability can improve health outcomes that are most relevant and beneficial to the target community, accelerate uptake, and promote sustainability.
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.