Dataset Information

Patients' perceived needs for medical services for non-specific low back pain: A systematic scoping review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:An improved understanding of patients' perceived needs for medical services for low back pain (LBP) will enable healthcare providers to better align service provision with patient expectations, thus improving patient and health care system outcomes. Thus, we aimed to identify the existing literature regarding patients' perceived needs for medical services for LBP. METHODS:A systematic scoping review was performed of publications identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO (1990-2016). Descriptive data regarding each study, its design and methodology were extracted and risk of bias assessed. Aggregates of patients' perceived needs for medical services for LBP were categorised. RESULTS:50 studies (35 qualitative, 14 quantitative and 1 mixed-methods study) from 1829 were relevant. Four areas of perceived need emerged: (1) Patients with LBP sought healthcare from medical practitioners to obtain a diagnosis, receive management options, sickness certification and legitimation for their LBP. However, there was dissatisfaction with the cursory and superficial approach of care. (2) Patients had concerns about pharmacotherapy, with few studies reporting on patients' preferences for medications. (3) Of the few studies which examined the patients' perceived need of invasive therapies, these found that patients avoided injections and surgeries (4) Patients desired spinal imaging for diagnostic purposes and legitimation of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS:Across many different patient populations with data obtained from a variety of study designs, common themes emerged which highlighted areas of patient dissatisfaction with the medical management of LBP, in particular, the superficial approach to care perceived by patients and concerns regarding pharmacotherapy. Patients perceive unmet needs from medical services, including the need to obtain a diagnosis, the desire for pain control and the preference for spinal imaging. These issues need to be considered in developing approaches for the management of LBP in order to improve patient outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Chou L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6224057 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patients' perceived needs for medical services for non-specific low back pain: A systematic scoping review.

Chou Louisa L Ranger Tom A TA Peiris Waruna W Cicuttini Flavia M FM Urquhart Donna M DM Sullivan Kaye K Seneviwickrama Maheeka M Briggs Andrew M AM Wluka Anita E AE

PloS one 20181108 11

<h4>Background</h4>An improved understanding of patients' perceived needs for medical services for low back pain (LBP) will enable healthcare providers to better align service provision with patient expectations, thus improving patient and health care system outcomes. Thus, we aimed to identify the existing literature regarding patients' perceived needs for medical services for LBP.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic scoping review was performed of publications identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL a ...[more]

PMID: 30408039

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent condition that has substantial impact on patients, the healthcare system and society. Pain management services (PMS), which aim to address the complex nature of back pain, are recommended in clinical practice guidelines to manage CLBP. Although the effectiveness of such services has been widely investigated in relation to CLBP, the quality of evidence underpinning the use of these services remains moderate. Therefore the aim is to summarize and critically appraise the current evidence for the cost effectiveness of pain management services for managing chronic back pain. METHODS:Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from their inception to February 2019. Full economic evaluations undertaken from any perspective conducted alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or based on decision analysis models were included. Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) risk assessment and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies. RESULTS:Five studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. The interventions varied significantly between studies in terms of the number and types of treatment modalities, intensity and the duration of the program. Interventions were compared with either standard care, which varied according to the country and the setting; or to surgical interventions. Three studies showed that pain management services are cost effective, while two studies showed that these services are not cost effective. In this review, three out of five studies had a high risk of bias based on the design of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, there were limitations in the statistical and sensitivity analyses in the economic evaluations. Therefore, the results from these studies need to be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION:Pain management services may be cost effective for the management of low back pain. However, this systematic review highlights the variability of evidence supporting pain management services for patients with back pain. This is due to the quality of the published studies and the variability of the setting, interventions, comparators and outcomes.

Project description:Optimal management of osteoarthritis requires active patient participation. Understanding patients' perceived health information needs is important in order to optimize health service delivery and health outcomes in osteoarthritis. We aimed to review the existing literature regarding patients' perceived health information needs for OA.A systematic scoping review was performed of publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO (1990-2016). Descriptive data regarding study design and methodology were extracted and risk of bias assessed. Aggregates of patients' perceived needs of osteoarthritis health information were categorized.30 studies from 2876 were included: 16 qualitative, 11 quantitative and 3 mixed-methods studies. Three areas of perceived need emerged: (1) Need for clear communication: terms used were misunderstood or had unintended connotations. Patients wanted clear explanations. (2) Need for information from various sources: patients wanted accessible health professionals with specialist knowledge of arthritis. The Internet, whilst a source of information, was acknowledged to have dubious reliability. Print media, television, support groups, family and friends were utilised to fulfil diverse information needs. (3) Needs of information content: patients desired more information about diagnosis, prognosis, management and prevention.Patients desire more information regarding the diagnosis of osteoarthritis, its impact on daily life and its long-term prognosis. They want more information not only about pharmacological management options, but also non-pharmacological options to help them manage their symptoms. Also, patients wanted this information to be delivered in a clear manner from multiple sources of health information. To address these gaps, more effective communication strategies are required. The use of a variety of sources and modes of delivery may enable the provision of complementary material to provide information more successfully, resulting in better patient adherence to guidelines and improved health outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Antidepressants are commonly used in the management of low-back pain. However, their use is controversial. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this review was to determine whether antidepressants are more effective than placebo for the treatment of non-specific low-back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY:Randomised controlled trials were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE (to September 2007), PsycINFO to June 2006, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2006, issue 2, and previous systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included randomised controlled trials that compared antidepressant medication and placebo for patients with non-specific low-back pain, and used at least one clinically relevant outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two blinded review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the trials. Meta-analyses were used to examine the effect of antidepressants on pain, depression and function, and the effect of antidepressant type on pain. To account for studies that could not be pooled, additional qualitative analyses were performed using the levels of evidence recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. MAIN RESULTS:Ten trials that compared antidepressants with placebo were included in this review. The pooled analyses showed no difference in pain relief (six trials; standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to 0.16)) or depression (two trials; SMD 0.06 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.40)) between antidepressant and placebo treatments. The qualitative analyses found conflicting evidence on the effect of antidepressants on pain intensity in chronic low-back pain, and no clear evidence that antidepressants reduce depression in chronic low-back pain patients. Two pooled analyses showed no difference in pain relief between different types of antidepressants and placebo. Our findings were not altered by the sensitivity analyses which varied the level of methodological quality required for inclusion in the meta-analyses to allow data from additional trials to be examined. Two additional trials were identified in September 2007 and await assessment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There is no clear evidence that antidepressants are more effective than placebo in the management of patients with chronic low-back pain. These findings do not imply that severely depressed patients with back pain should not be treated with antidepressants; furthermore, there is evidence for their use in other forms of chronic pain.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify suggestions for future research on spinal movement variability (SMV) in individuals with low back pain (LBP) by investigating (1) the methodologies and statistical tools used to assess SMV; (2) characteristics that influence the direction of change in SMV; (3) the methodological quality and potential biases in the published studies; and (4) strategies for optimizing SMV in LBP patients.MethodsWe searched literature databases (CENTRAL, Medline, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL) and comprehensively reviewed the relevant papers up to 5 May 2020. Eligibility criteria included studies investigating SMV in LBP subjects by measuring trunk angle using motion capture devices during voluntary repeated trunk movements in any plane. The Newcastle-Ottawa risk of bias tool was used for data quality assessment. Results were reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.ResultsEighteen studies were included: 14 cross-sectional and 4 prospective studies. Seven linear and non-linear statistical tools were used. Common movement tasks included trunk forward bending and backward return, and object lifting. Study results on SMV changes associated with LBP were inconsistent. Two of the three interventional studies reported changes in SMV, one of which was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving neuromuscular exercise interventions. Many studies did not account for the potential risk of selection bias in the LBP population.ConclusionDesigners of future studies should recognize that each of the two types of statistical tools assesses functionally different aspects of SMV. Future studies should also consider dividing participants into subgroups according to LBP characteristics, as three potential subgroups with different SMV characteristics were proposed in our study. Different task demands also produced different effects. We found preliminary evidence in a RCT that neuromuscular exercises could modify SMV, suggesting a rationale for well-designed RCTs involving neuromuscular exercise interventions in future studies.

Dataset Information

Patients' perceived needs for medical services for non-specific low back pain: A systematic scoping review.

Publications

Patients' perceived needs for medical services for non-specific low back pain: A systematic scoping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets