Paul Enthoven1, Fredrik Eddeborn1,2, Allan Abbott1, Karin Schröder1, Maria Fors1,3, Birgitta Öberg1. 1. Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Division of Prevention, Rehabilitation and Community Medicine, Unit of Physiotherapy, Linköping University , Linköping, Sweden. 2. Rehab West, Region Östergötland, and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University , Linköping, Sweden. 3. Department of Activity and Health, and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University , Linköping, Sweden.
Abstract
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Low back pain; common-sense model; education; health care professionals; physiotherapy; primary care; qualitative interview; reassurance; self-efficacy; self-management
Authors: Tania Gardner; Kathryn Refshauge; James McAuley; Markus Hübscher; Stephen Goodall; Lorraine Smith Journal: Physiother Theory Pract Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: M Glattacker; A Dudeck; S Dibbelt; M Quatmann; B Greitemann; W H Jäckel Journal: Rehabilitation (Stuttg) Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 1.113
Authors: Geert Crombez; Christopher Eccleston; Stefaan Van Damme; Johan W S Vlaeyen; Paul Karoly Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Karin Schröder; Birgitta Öberg; Paul Enthoven; Henrik Hedevik; Maria Fors; Allan Abbott Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 4.241