Misbeliefs about non-specific low back pain and attitudes towards treatment by primary care providers in Spain: a qualitative study
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aim
To identify misbeliefs about the origin and meaning of non-specific chronic low back pain and to examine attitudes towards treatment by primary health care providers. Design
Generic qualitative study. Methods
Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted between October and November 2016 with physicians and nurses from primary health care centres in Lleida. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using inductive thematic analysis via Atlas.ti-8 software. Results
Five themes were identified: i. beliefs about the origin and meaning of chronic low back pain, ii. psychosocial aspects of pain modulators, iii. Therapeutic exercise as a treatment for chronic low back pain, iv. biomedical attitudes of primary health care providers, and v. difficulties in the clinical approach to chronic low back pain. Conclusion
Primary health care providers have a unifactorial view of chronic low back pain and base their approach on the biomedical model. Professionals attribute chronic low back pain to structural alterations in the lumbar spine while psychosocial factors are only recognized as pain modulators. For professionals, therapeutic exercise represents a possible solution to chronic low back pain; however, they still do not prescribe it and continue to educate on postural hygiene and recommend limiting physical and/or occupational activities, as opposed to clinical practice guidelines. These findings suggest that to improve the adherence of primary health care providers to the biopsychosocial model, it may be necessary first to modify their misbeliefs about non-specific chronic low back pain by increasing their knowledge on pain neurophysiology. Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02962817. Date of registration: 11/11/2016. Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01617-3.
SUBMITTER: Garcia-Martinez E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8759168 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical practice guidelines suggest that magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine (LS-MRI) is unneeded during the first 6 weeks of acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Unneeded LS-MRIs do not improve patient outcomes, lead to unnecessary surgeries and procedures, and cost the US healthcare system about $300 million dollars per year. However, why primary care providers (PCPs) order unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE:To characterize and explain the factors contributing to PCPs ordering unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. DESIGN:Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS:Veterans Affairs PCPs identified from administrative data as having high or low rates of guideline-concordant LS-MRI ordering in 2016. APPROACH:Providers were interviewed about their use of LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain and factors contributing to their decision-making. Directed content analysis of transcripts was conducted to identify and compare environmental-, patient-, and provider-level factors contributing to unneeded LS-MRI. KEY RESULTS:Fifty-five PCPs participated (8.6% response rate). Both low (n = 33) and high (n = 22) guideline-concordant providers reported that LS-MRIs were required for specialty care referrals, but they differed in how other environmental factors (stringency of radiology utilization review, management of patient travel burden, and time constraints) contributed to LS-MRI ordering patterns. Low- and high-guideline-concordant providers reported similar patient factors (beliefs in value of imaging and pressure on providers). However, provider groups differed in how provider-level factors (guideline familiarity and agreement, the extent to which they acquiesced to patients, and belief in the value of LS-MRI) contributed to LS-MRI ordering patterns. CONCLUSIONS:Results describe how diverse environmental, patient, and provider factors contribute to unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Prior research using a single intervention to reduce unneeded LS-MRI has been ineffective. Results suggest that multifaceted de-implementation strategies may be required to reduce unneeded LS-MRI.
| S-EPMC7174262 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic pain constitutes a significant burden for the individuals affected, and is a frequent reason why patients seek health care services. While in-person psychosocial interventions can be of support to people living with chronic pain, such interventions are not always accessible. eHealth interventions may provide greater accessibility, but the evidence and use of digital self-management solutions for chronic pain are still limited and the lack of health care provider input in the development process of such solutions a concern. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to investigate health care providers' experiences of treating patients with chronic pain, their attitudes towards, and use of, digital solutions in pain management, and their suggestions for content and design elements for a potential digital pain self-management intervention.MethodsTwelve health care providers representing a variety of health care disciplines participated in semi-structured interviews. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsThe material was analyzed into three main themes: [1] Patients with chronic pain and their current use of the health care services, [2] Health care providers' own motivation and impression of patient prerequisites for use of digital self-management interventions, and [3] Suggestions for content and design elements in a digital self-management intervention for people living with chronic pain. The challenges faced by patients living with chronic pain were described as numerous. Despite interest and positive attitudes, few of the health care providers had used or recommended eHealth solutions to their patients. A range of potential content and functionality elements were identified, including aspects of motivation and engagement and providers also emphasized the importance of easy access and positive, personal content to support existing treatment.ConclusionsThis study offers insights into health care providers' considerations for the potential of digital self-management interventions supporting patients living with chronic pain. Findings indicate the need for change and a more comprehensive treatment approach to pain management. eHealth solutions may contribute to such change, and providers pointed to a need for health care provider involvement, timely support and follow-up as important factors for integrating digital pain self-management interventions into clinical care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03705104.
| S-EPMC7992849 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This descriptive review provides a summary of the prevalence, activity limitation (disability), care-seeking, natural history and clinical course, treatment outcome, and costs of low back pain (LBP) in primary care. LBP is a common problem affecting both genders and most ages, for which about one in four adults seeks care in a six-month period. It results in considerable direct and indirect costs, and these costs are financial, workforce and social. Care-seeking behaviour varies depending on cultural factors, the intensity of the pain, the extent of activity limitation and the presence of co-morbidity. Care-seeking for LBP is a significant proportion of caseload for some primary-contact disciplines. Most recent-onset LBP episodes settle but only about one in three resolves completely over a 12-month period. About three in five will recur in an on-going relapsing pattern and about one in 10 do not resolve at all. The cases that do not resolve at all form a persistent LBP group that consume the bulk of LBP compensable care resources and for whom positive outcomes are possible but not frequent or substantial.
| S-EPMC1208926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: The aim of this study was to describe patient experiences of received primary care for low back pain (LBP) according to the BetterBack Model of Care (MoC) with a focus on illness beliefs and self-management enablement. Methods: Individual interviews were conducted with 15 adults 4-14 months after receiving treatment according to the BetterBack MoC for LBP in primary care in Sweden. Data were analysed using content analysis. Results: When analysing the data, the following theme emerged; "Participant understanding of their treatment for low back pain and self-management strategies-a matter of support systems", comprising the following categories: "Knowledge translation", "Interaction and dialogue", "The health care professional support" and "Form organization". Participants experienced that they had better knowledge about their LBP and received tools to better manage their health condition. The participants expressed good communication with the treating physiotherapist and provided suggestions to further improve the treatment of LBP. Conclusions: Participants experienced that they had gained new knowledge about their health problems and after the treatment they had the tools to handle their back problems. This suggests that the BetterBack MoC may be used as a basis for a support system to provide valuable tools for self-management for patients with low back pain.
| S-EPMC7782354 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite efforts to improve access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD), such as buprenorphine, the number of opioid overdoses in the United States continues to rise. In April 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services removed the mandatory training requirement to obtain a buprenorphine waiver; the goal was to encourage more providers to prescribe buprenorphine, thus improving access. Little is known about the attitudes on buprenorphine prescribing after this policy change.ObjectiveThe primary objective was to assess attitudes among primary care providers toward the removal of the buprenorphine waiver training requirement. A secondary objective was to identify other barriers to prescribing buprenorphine.MethodsWe conducted a survey between September 15 and October 13, 2021 to assess the overall beliefs on the effectiveness of MOUD and attitudes toward the removal of the waiver training, current knowledge of buprenorphine, current practice styles related to screening for and treating OUD, and attitudes toward prescribing buprenorphine in the future. This survey was sent to 890 Mayo Clinic primary care providers in 5 US states.ResultsOne hundred twenty-three respondents (13.8%) completed the survey; 35.8% respondents agreed that the removal of the waiver training was a positive step. These respondents expressed a greater familiarity with the different formulations, pharmacology, and titration of buprenorphine. This group was also more likely to prescribe (or continue to prescribe) buprenorphine in the future. Approximately one-third (34.4%) of respondents reported perceived institutional support in prescribing buprenorphine. This group expressed greater confidence in diagnosing OUD, had greater familiarity with the different formulations, pharmacology, and titration of buprenorphine, and was more likely to prescribe (or continue to prescribe) buprenorphine in the future. Respondents who have been in practice for 11 to 20 years since completion of training were most likely to refer all OUD patients to specialists.ConclusionsResults of our survey suggests that simply removing the mandatory waiver training requirement is insufficient in positively changing attitudes toward buprenorphine prescribing. A key barrier is the perceived lack of institutional support. Future studies investigating effective ways to provide such support may help improve providers' willingness to prescribe buprenorphine.
| S-EPMC9284198 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:Emergency care research in Africa is not on par with other world regions. The study aimed to assess the perceptions and practices towards research among current emergency care providers in Africa. Methods:A survey was sent to all individual members of the African Federation of Emergency Medicine. The survey was available in English and French. Results:One hundred and sixty-eight responses were analysed (invited n = 540, responded n = 188, 34.8%, excluded n = 20). Responders' mean age was 36.3 years (SD = 9.1); 122 (72.6%) were male, 104 (61.9%) were doctors, and 127 (75.6%) were African trained. Thirty-seven (22%) have never been involved in research; 33 (19.6%) have been involved in ?5 research projects. African related projects were mostly relevant to African audiences (n = 106, 63.1%). Ninety-four (56%) participants have never published. Forty-one (24.4%) were not willing to publish in open access journals requesting a publication fee; 65 (38.7%) will consider open access journals if fees are sponsored. Eighty responders (47.6%) frequently experienced access block to original articles due to subscription charges. Lack of research funding (n = 108, 64.3%), lack of research training (n = 86, 51.2%), and lack of allocated research time (n = 76, 45.2%) were the main barriers to research involvement. Improvement of research skills (n = 118, 70.2%) and having research published (n = 117, 69.6%) were the top motivational factors selected. Responders agreed that research promotes critical thinking (n = 137, 81.5%) and serve as an important educational tool (n = 134, 80.4%). However, 134 (79.8%) feel that emergency care workers need to be shown how to use research to improve clinical practice. Most agreed that insufficient emergency care research is being conducted in Africa (n = 113, 67.3%). Discussion:There is scope to increase research involvement in emergency care in Africa, but solutions need to be find to address lack of research-related funding, training and time.
| S-EPMC6234192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe first-line contact for patients seeking care for low back pain (LBP) can potentially change the disease course. The beliefs and attitudes of healthcare providers (HCPs) can influence LBP management. Although referring patients with LBP to physical therapy is common, the first-line contact for patients with LBP in Saudi Arabia is the primary care physician (PCP). Physical therapy will soon be integrated into primary care; therefore, it is rational to compare physical therapists' (PTs) beliefs and attitudes regarding LBP with those of PCPs.ObjectiveWe compared PCPs' and PTs' attitudes and beliefs regarding LBP management.MethodsWe employed a cross-sectional, voluntary response sample research design using the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS). Participants were PTs and PCPs practicing in Saudi Arabia.ResultsIn total, 153 participants completed the PABS (111 PTs and 52 PCPs). PCPs demonstrated significantly higher PABS biomedical subscale scores than did the PTs.ConclusionsHCPs in Saudi Arabia should receive additional training to adopt a biopsychosocial approach to managing LBP. In this study, the HCPs' treatment recommendations may not correspond with contemporary clinical guidelines. Research to facilitate the implementation of optimal professional education and training to adopt a biopsychosocial approach is an urgent priority.
| S-EPMC9398080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe main aim of this study was to investigate physiotherapists' pain attitudes and beliefs towardss non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) and identify whether they are associated with treatment selection.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingSaudi Arabia (SA).ParticipantsAn online survey was distributed to physiotherapists from April 2018 to January 2019. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Biomedical and biopsychosocial treatment orientations were assessed using the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists. (2) Frequent potential treatments used by physiotherapists for individuals with NSCLBP were identified through a 20-item survey. (3) The association between physiotherapists' pain attitudes and beliefs and treatment selection was investigated. Descriptive analysis, Pearson's correlation and multinomial logistic regression were used to analyse the data using SPSS (V.26).ResultsA total of 304 responses were included in the analysis. The biomedical (34.45±7.84) and biopsychosocial (31.74±5.67) treatment orientations were relatively low. The most frequent treatments used by physiotherapists were home exercises (87.1%), patient education (82.0%), specific back exercises (80.6%), electrotherapy (61.9%), soft tissue release (58.8%) and spinal mobilisation or manipulation (57.8%). Physiotherapists with a stronger biomedical treatment orientation were more likely to use treatments (p<0.05) such as specific back exercises, electrotherapy, soft tissue release, hydrotherapy, massage, lumbar supports and acupuncture. However, physiotherapists with a stronger biopsychosocial treatment orientation were more likely to use cognitive functional therapy (p<0.01).ConclusionsBiomedical and biopsychosocial treatment orientations were relatively low among physiotherapists in SA. Although treatments such as home exercises and patient education were frequently used, some passive and traditional treatments not recommended by clinical practice guidelines continue to be commonly used by physiotherapists in SA. This study has confirmed that physiotherapists' pain attitudes and beliefs are significantly associated with treatment selection when managing individuals with NSCLBP.Trial registration numberResearchregistry3944.
| S-EPMC7311013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPoint-of-care blood tests are becoming increasingly available and could replace current venipuncture and laboratory testing for many commonly used tests. However, at present very few have been implemented in most primary care settings. Understanding the attitudes of primary care clinicians towards these tests may help to identify the barriers and facilitators to their wider adoption. We aimed to systematically review qualitative studies of primary care clinicians' attitudes to point-of-care blood tests.MethodsWe systematically searched Medline, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO and CINAHL for qualitative studies of primary care clinicians' attitudes towards point-of-care blood tests in high income countries. We conducted a thematic synthesis of included studies.ResultsOur search identified seven studies, including around two hundred participants from Europe and Australia. The synthesis generated three main themes: the impact of point-of-care testing on decision-making, diagnosis and treatment; impact on clinical practice more broadly; and impact on patient-clinician relationships and perceived patient experience. Primary care clinicians believed point-of-care testing improved diagnostic certainty, targeting of treatment, self-management of chronic conditions, and clinician-patient communication and relationships. There were concerns about test accuracy, over-reliance on tests, undermining of clinical skills, cost, and limited usefulness.ConclusionsWe identified several perceived benefits and barriers regarding point-of-care tests in primary care. These imply that if point-of-care tests are to become more widely adopted, primary care clinicians require evidence of their accuracy, rigorous testing of the impact of introduction on patient pathways and clinical practice, and consideration of test funding.
| S-EPMC3751354 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To examine how primary care physicians define placebo concepts, use placebos in clinical practice, and view open-label placebos (OLPs). DESIGN:Semi-structured focus groups that were audio-recorded and content-coded. METHODS:Two focus groups with a total of 15 primary care physicians occurred at medical centres in the New England region of the United States. Prior experience using placebo treatments and attitudes towards open-label placebos were explored. Themes were analysed using an inductive data-driven approach. RESULTS:Physicians displayed a nuanced understanding of placebos and placebo effects in clinical contexts which sometimes focused on relational factors. Some respondents reported that they prescribed treatments with no known pharmacological effect for certain conditions and symptoms ('impure placebos') and that such prescriptions were more common for pain disorders, functional disorders, and medically unexplained symptoms. Opinions about OLP were mixed: Some viewed OLPs favourably or considered them 'harmless'; however, others strongly rejected OLPs as disrespectful to patients. Other issues in relation to OLPs included the following: lack of guidelines, legal and reputational concerns, and the notion that such treatments would run counter to customary medical practice. CONCLUSIONS:A number of physicians reported prescribing impure placebos in clinical care. Although some primary care physicians were resistant to the possibility of recommending OLPs, others regarded OLPs more favourably, viewing them as potential treatments, albeit with restricted potential. Statement of contribution What is already known? Many physicians report prescribing drugs for the purposes of eliciting a placebo effect. Initial evidence for the efficacy of open-label placebos is promising. What does this study add? A more nuanced description of the circumstances under which primary care physicians report placebo prescribing. A qualitative account of physician attitudes about using open-label placebos in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC7423714 | biostudies-literature