Literature DB >> 25192904

Acute low back pain management in general practice: uncertainty and conflicting certainties.

Ben Darlow1, Sarah Dean2, Meredith Perry3, Fiona Mathieson4, G David Baxter3, Anthony Dowell5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a significant health problem and common reason to visit the GP. Evidence suggests GPs experience difficulty applying evidence-based guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: Explore GPs' underlying beliefs about acute LBP and how these influence their clinical management of patients.
METHODS: Eleven GPs from one geographical region within New Zealand were recruited by purposive sampling. Audio recordings of semi-structured qualitative interviews were transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed with an Interpretive Description framework.
RESULTS: Four key themes emerged related to the causes of acute LBP, GP confidence, communicating diagnostic uncertainty and encouraging movement and activity. Acute LBP was seen as a direct representation of tissue injury, consequently the assessment and management of patients' attitudes and beliefs was not a priority. Participants' confidence was decreased due to a perceived inability to diagnose or influence the tissue injury. Despite this, diagnoses were provided to patients to provide reassurance and meet expectations. Guideline recommendations regarding activity conflicted with a perceived need to protect damaged tissue, resulting in reported provision of mixed messages about the need to be both active and careful.
CONCLUSIONS: GPs' initial focus upon tissue injury during acute care, and providing a diagnostic label, may influence patients' subsequent alignment with a biomedical perspective and contribute to consultation conflict and patients' perception of blame when discussion of psychosocial influences is introduced. Demonstrating the relevance of the biopsychosocial model to acute LBP may improve GPs' alignment with guidelines, improve their confidence to manage these patients and ultimately improve outcomes.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attitudes; general practice; guideline adherence; health knowledge; low back pain; practice; qualitative research.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25192904      PMCID: PMC5942537          DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmu051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Pract        ISSN: 0263-2136            Impact factor:   2.267


  46 in total

1.  The economic burden of back pain in the UK.

Authors:  N Maniadakis; A Gray
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 6.961

2.  Safety, efficacy, and cost effectiveness of evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care.

Authors:  B McGuirk; W King; J Govind; J Lowry; N Bogduk
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Changing clinical behaviour by making guidelines specific.

Authors:  Susan Michie; Marie Johnston
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-02-07

4.  "You feel so hopeless": a qualitative study of GP management of acute back pain.

Authors:  Alan Breen; Helen Austin; Charles Campion-Smith; Eloise Carr; Eileen Mann
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2006-01-24       Impact factor: 3.931

5.  Early management of persistent non-specific low back pain: summary of NICE guidance.

Authors:  Pauline Savigny; Paul Watson; Martin Underwood
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-06-04

6.  Strengths and challenges in the use of interpretive description: reflections arising from a study of the moral experience of health professionals in humanitarian work.

Authors:  Matthew R Hunt
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2009-09

7.  Implementation barriers for general practice guidelines on low back pain a qualitative study.

Authors:  H Schers; M Wensing; Z Huijsmans; M van Tulder; R Grol
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Low back pain and best practice care: A survey of general practice physicians.

Authors:  Christopher M Williams; Christopher G Maher; Mark J Hancock; James H McAuley; Andrew J McLachlan; Helena Britt; Salma Fahridin; Christopher Harrison; Jane Latimer
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-02-08

9.  A cost-of-illness study of back pain in The Netherlands.

Authors:  Maurits W van Tulder; Bart W Koes; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 6.961

10.  Identifying patients' beliefs about treatments for chronic low back pain in primary care: a focus group study.

Authors:  Alexandra Dima; George T Lewith; Paul Little; Rona Moss-Morris; Nadine E Foster; Felicity L Bishop
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 5.386

View more
  12 in total

1.  Psychological assessments by manual physiotherapists in the Netherlands in patients with nonspecific low back pain.

Authors:  Joannes M Hallegraeff; Leonie Van Zweden; Rob Ab Oostendorp; Emiel Van Trijffel
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2021-04-28

2.  Socio-Cultural Factors and Experience of Chronic Low Back Pain: a Spanish and Brazilian Patients' Perspective. A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Daiana Priscila Rodrigues-de-Souza; Domingo Palacios-Ceña; Lourdes Moro-Gutiérrez; Paula Rezende Camargo; Tania Fátima Salvini; Francisco Alburquerque-Sendín
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Importance of psychological factors for the recovery from a first episode of acute non-specific neck pain - a longitudinal observational study.

Authors:  Brigitte Wirth; B Kim Humphreys; Cynthia Peterson
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2016-03-16

4.  The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to low back pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Ben Darlow; James Stanley; Sarah Dean; J Haxby Abbott; Sue Garrett; Fiona Mathieson; Anthony Dowell
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  Determining the impact of a new physiotherapist-led primary care model for back pain: protocol for a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jordan Miller; David Barber; Catherine Donnelly; Simon French; Michael Green; Jonathan Hill; Joy MacDermid; Jacquelyn Marsh; Kathleen Norman; Julie Richardson; Monica Taljaard; Timothy Wideman; Lynn Cooper; Colleen McPhee
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Matching treatment options for risk sub-groups in musculoskeletal pain: a consensus groups study.

Authors:  Joanne Protheroe; Benjamin Saunders; Bernadette Bartlam; Kate M Dunn; Vince Cooper; Paul Campbell; Jonathan C Hill; Stephanie Tooth; Christian D Mallen; Elaine M Hay; Nadine E Foster
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Physician-reported barriers to using evidence-based recommendations for low back pain in clinical practice: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Authors:  Amanda M Hall; Samantha R Scurrey; Andrea E Pike; Charlotte Albury; Helen L Richmond; James Matthews; Elaine Toomey; Jill A Hayden; Holly Etchegary
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 7.327

8.  Patients' return-to-work expectancy relates to their beliefs about their physician's opinion regarding return to work volition and ability.

Authors:  Benjamin Claréus; Emma A Renström
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 3.133

9.  The effect of the stay active advice on physical activity and on the course of acute severe low back pain.

Authors:  Patricia Olaya-Contreras; Jorma Styf; Daniel Arvidsson; Karin Frennered; Tommy Hansson
Journal:  BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil       Date:  2015-08-27

10.  General practitioners knowledge and management of whiplash associated disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder: implications for patient care.

Authors:  Bianca Brijnath; Samantha Bunzli; Ting Xia; Nabita Singh; Peter Schattner; Alex Collie; Michele Sterling; Danielle Mazza
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 2.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.