Dataset Information

How do low back pain patients conceptualize their expectations regarding treatment? Content analysis of interviews.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to gain insight into how low back pain (LBP) patients conceptualize the construct of expectations regarding treatment.This study was nested within a mixed-method randomized clinical trial comparing three primary care interventions for LBP. A total of 77 participants with LBP lasting longer than 6 weeks were included; semi-structured interviews were conducted querying patients about their expectations for treatment. Also factors influencing their expectations were explored. Interviews were administered following enrollment into the study, but prior to study treatment. Two researchers independently conducted a content analysis using NVIVO 9 software.LBP patients' expectations could be categorized in two main domains: outcome and process expectations, each with subdomains. Patients expressed expectations in all subdomains both as values (what they hoped) and probabilities (what they thought was likely). In multiple subdomains, there were differences in the nature (positive vs. negative) and frequency of value and probability expectations. Participants reported that multiple factors influenced their expectations of which past experience with treatment appeared to be of major influence on probability expectations.This study showed that LBP patients' expectations for treatment are multifaceted. Current measurement instruments do not cover all domains and subdomains of expectations. Therefore, we recommend the development of new or improved measures that make a distinction between value and probability expectations and assess process and/or outcome expectations covering multiple subdomains. Some of the influencing factors found in this study may be useful targets for altering patients' treatment expectations and improving health outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Haanstra TM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3777054 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How do low back pain patients conceptualize their expectations regarding treatment? Content analysis of interviews.

Haanstra T M TM Hanson L L Evans R R van Nes F A FA De Vet H C W HC Cuijpers P P Ostelo R W J G RW

European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society 20130510 9

<h4>Purpose</h4>The purpose of this study was to gain insight into how low back pain (LBP) patients conceptualize the construct of expectations regarding treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>This study was nested within a mixed-method randomized clinical trial comparing three primary care interventions for LBP. A total of 77 participants with LBP lasting longer than 6 weeks were included; semi-structured interviews were conducted querying patients about their expectations for treatment. Also factors influe ...[more]

PMID: 23661035

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIn observational studies, patients' treatment outcome expectations have been associated with better outcomes (ie, a placebo response), whereas concerns about adverse side effects have been associated with an in increase in the negative effects of treatments (ie, a nocebo response). Some randomized trials have suggested that communication from clinicians could affect the treatment outcomes by changing patients' expectations.ObjectiveTo investigate whether treatment outcome expectations and reported adverse side effects could be affected by different briefing contents before a minimal acupuncture treatment in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized single-blinded clinical trial was conducted among patients with CLBP at 1 outpatient clinic in Switzerland who had a pain intensity of at least 4 on a numeric rating scale from 0 to 10. Different recruitment channels were used to enroll patients. Data were collected from May 2016 to December 2017 and were analyzed from June to November 2018.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive either a regular expectation briefing or a high expectation briefing (effectiveness) and either a regular adverse side effect briefing or an intense adverse side effect briefing (adverse side effect) in a 2 × 2 factorial design. The intervention (briefing sessions and written materials) was standardized and delivered before the acupuncture treatment, with additional booster informative emails provided during the 4-week, 8-session acupuncture course.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the patients' expectations regarding the effectiveness of the acupuncture treatment (Expectation for Treatment Scale [ETS]) after the briefing and the subsequent pain intensity (numeric rating scale). The primary end point for the adverse side effect briefing was the adverse side effect score at the end of the acupuncture treatment, derived from session-by-session assessments of adverse side effects.ResultsA total of 152 patients with CLBP (mean [SD] age, 39.54 [12.52] years; 100 [65.8%] women) were included. The estimated group difference (regular vs high) for the ETS was -0.16 (95% CI -0.81 to 0.50, P = .64), indicating no evidence for a difference between intervention groups. There was also no evidence for a difference in pain intensity at the end of the acupuncture treatment between the groups with different expectation briefings. The adverse side effects score in the group with the intense adverse side effect briefing were estimated to be 1.31 times higher (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.82; P = .11) than after a regular adverse side effect briefing, but the finding was not statistically significant.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, suggestions regarding treatment benefits (placebo) and adverse side effects (nocebo) did not affect treatment expectations or adverse side effects. Information regarding adverse side effects might require more research to understand nocebo responses.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register Identifier: DRKS00010191.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain is a common reason for patients to seek medical care. Physician non-adherence to clinical guidelines has been observed. We investigated the extent to which patient expectations correspond to recommendations of the German national guideline for management of low back pain (G-LBP) and whether patient characteristics, history of LBP and previous treatment experience are associated with expectations.MethodsA cross-sectional study including patients from 13 general practices was conducted. Data were collected using a questionnaire. Inverse probability weights were used to address non-response bias. Descriptive analysis and multivariate logistic regression models were performed.ResultsA total of 977 patients were included in analyses (median age 57 years, 39% male). 75% of patients reported experiencing LBP currently or within the last year. More than 65% indicated they would agree to forgo further examinations if their LBP was judged by their physician to be of no serious concern. This was associated with the highest level of education and no prior imaging, and negatively associated with good-to-poor health status and moderate-to-severe pain intensity. 40% of participants expected imaging. The highest educational level, female gender and no prior imaging were associated with a decreased expectation of imaging. 70% expected prescriptions for massages. Females, participants with good-to-poor health status, current LBP or LBP in the last 12 months had an increased expectation for massages. Expectations for injection therapy (45%) were mainly associated with previous injections. Expectations for physiotherapy (64%) were associated with female gender, lower educational level, good-to-poor health status, current LBP or in the last 12 months. The perspective that daily activities should be continued (66%) was associated with female gender and higher educational level. Participants who agreed to the statement 'There is no effective treatment for LBP' (11%) had a poor health status, current LBP and a severe pain intensity.ConclusionPatient views regarding LBP management are partially concordant with guideline recommendations and are strongly influenced by previous treatment experiences and education level. Exploration of patient expectations and experiences in LBP treatment may help minimize dissatisfaction of patients expecting treatments not endorsed by guidelines and simultaneously increase physician guideline adherence.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a major cause of disease burden around the world. There is known clinical variation in how LBP is treated and addressed; with one cited reason the lack of availability, or use of, evidence-based guidance for clinicians, consumers, and administrators. Despite this a considerable number of policy directives such as clinical practice guidelines, models of care and clinical tools with the aim of improving quality of LBP care do exist. Here we report on the development of a repository of LBP directives developed in the Australian health system and a content analysis of those directives aimed at deepening our understanding of the guidance landscape. Specifically, we sought to determine: (1) What is the type, scale, and scope of LBP directives available? (2) Who are the key stakeholders that drive low back pain care through directives? (3) What content do they cover? (4) What are their gaps and deficiencies?MethodsWe used online web search and snowballing methods to collate a repository of LBP policy documents collectively called 'directives' including Models of Care (MOC), information sheets, clinical tools, guidelines, surveys, and reports, from the last 20 years. The texts of the directives were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis adopting methods from descriptive policy content analysis to categorise and analyse content to determine origins, actors, and themes.ResultsEighty-four directives were included in our analysis. Of those, 55 were information sheets aimed at either healthcare providers or patients, nine were clinical tools, three were reports, four were guidelines, four were MOC, two were questionnaires and five were referral forms/criteria. The three main categories of content found in the directives were 1. Low back pain features 2. Standards for clinical encounters and 3. Management of LBP, each of which gave rise to different themes and subthemes. Universities, not-for-profit organizations, government organisations, hospitals/Local Health Districts, professional organisations, consumers, and health care insurers were all involved in the production of policy directives. However, there were no clear patterns of roles, responsibilities or authority between these stakeholder groups.ConclusionDirectives have the potential to inform practice and to contribute to reducing evidence-policy-practice discordance. Documents in our repository demonstrate that while a range of directives exist across Australia, but the evidence base for many was not apparent. Qualitative content analysis of the directives showed that while there has been increasing attention given to models of care, this is not yet reflected in directives, which generally focus on more specific elements of LBP care at the individual patient and practitioner level. The sheer number and variety of directives, from a wide range of sources and various locations within the Australian health system suggests a fragmented policy landscape without clear authoritative sources. There is a need for clearer, easily accessible trustworthy policy directives that are regularly reviewed and that meet the needs of care providers, and information websites need to be evaluated regularly for their evidence-based nature and quality.

Project description:BackgroundThe management of low back pain (LBP) is highly variable and patients often receive management that is not recommended and/or miss out on recommended care. Clinician knowledge and behaviours are strongly influenced by entry-level clinical training and are commonly cited as barriers to implementing evidence-based management. Currently there are no internationally recognised curriculum standards for the teaching of LBP content to ensure graduating clinicians have the appropriate knowledge and competencies to assess and manage LBP. We formed an international interdisciplinary working group to develop curriculum content standards for the teaching of LBP in entry-level clinical training programs.MethodsThe working group included representatives from 11 countries: 18 academics and clinicians from healthcare professions who deal with the management of LBP (medicine, physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, pharmacology, and psychology), seven professional organisation representatives (medicine, physiotherapy, chiropractic, spine societies), and one healthcare consumer. A literature review was performed, including database and hand searches of guidelines and accreditation, curricula, and other policy documents, to identify gaps in current LBP teaching and recommended entry-level knowledge and competencies. The steering group (authors) drafted the initial LBP Curriculum Content Standards (LBP-CCS), which were discussed and modified through two review rounds with the working group.ResultsSixty-two documents informed the draft standards. The final LBP-CCS consisted of four broad topics covering the epidemiology, biopsychosocial contributors, assessment, and management of LBP. For each topic, key knowledge and competencies to be achieved by the end of entry-level clinical training were described.ConclusionWe have developed the LBP-CCS in consultation with an interdisciplinary, international working group. These standards can be used to inform or benchmark the content of curricula related to LBP in new or existing entry-level clinical training programs.

Dataset Information

How do low back pain patients conceptualize their expectations regarding treatment? Content analysis of interviews.

Publications

How do low back pain patients conceptualize their expectations regarding treatment? Content analysis of interviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets