Trial reportBMJ open quality2026
Where is the patient in the records? Evaluating physiotherapists' first visit in occupational health primary care pathway for low back pain.
Trial report in BMJ open quality, 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
backgroundClinical guidelines recommend a biopsychosocial approach to low back pain (LBP) management, with physiotherapists playing a key role in occupational health primary care (OHPC). However, little is known about how their clinical behaviours at the first visit align with guideline-oriented biopsychosocial principles. Therefore, we evaluated LBP management quality in OHPC by applying predefined criteria to physiotherapists' documentation.
methodsBased on a cluster-randomised implementation study data (ISRCTN11875357) we analysed 98 electronic patient records (EPRs) documented by 28 physiotherapists across diverse OHPC units. The intervention arm had received 3-7 days of biopsychosocial training. A stratified random sample of EPRs from individuals with LBP was reviewed using a structured researcher's evaluation tool. Each item was scored dichotomously (yes/no) and evaluated against predefined quality criteria with stepwise thresholds for different work disability risk groups.
resultsStep I, multidimensional biopsychosocial assessment of LBP, was documented in fewer than half of the records (36.5% in the intervention vs 16.7% in the control arm, p=0.081). The biological dimension was well documented in both arms (100% vs 95.8%, p=0.245), while psychological (58.1% vs 25%, p=0.009) and social (54.1% vs 29.2%, p=0.038) dimensions were more frequently documented in the intervention arm.Step II quality criteria (low-risk patients) were met in 58.1% of intervention versus 4.2% of control records (p<0.001), and step III (medium-risk) in 55.4% versus 4.2% (p<0.001). No EPRs met step IV (high-risk) quality criteria.The intervention arm more often documented psychosocial assessments, risk stratification, behavioural strategies and advice to stay active. Person-centredness (ie, goals, values, resources, expectations) was rarely documented (36.5% vs 0%, p<0.001).
conclusionTraining in guideline-oriented biopsychosocial approach was associated with more frequent documentation of behaviours aligned with high-quality LBP management. However, overall quality varied, and person-centred aspects remained underreported. Complementary implementation strategies are required to ensure consistent delivery and documentation of biopsychosocial clinical practice in OHPC.
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.