Clinician, patient and general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain: Protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis

Adrian C Traeger, Benjamin J Reed, Denise A O'Connor, Tammy C Hoffmann, Gustavo C Machado, Carissa Bonner, Chris G Maher, Rachelle Buchbinder

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

51 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about how to reduce unnecessary imaging for low back pain. Understanding clinician, patient and general public beliefs about imaging is critical to developing strategies to reduce overuse.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient or general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a qualitative evidence synthesis of relevant qualitative research exploring clinician, patient and general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain. Exclusions will be studies not using qualitative methods and studies not published in English. Studies will be identified using sensitive search strategies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO. Two reviewers will independently apply inclusion and exclusion criteria, extract data, and use the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool to assess the quality of included studies. To synthesise the data we will use a narrative synthesis approach that involves developing a theoretical model, conducting a preliminary synthesis, exploring relations in the data, and providing a structured summary. We will code the data using NVivo. At least two reviewers will independently apply the thematic framework to extracted data. Confidence in synthesis findings will be evaluated using the GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required to conduct this review. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017076047.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere019470
Number of pages7
JournalBMJ Open
Volume8
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 Feb 2018

Fingerprint

Qualitative Research
Diagnostic Imaging
Low Back Pain
MEDLINE
Theoretical Models

Cite this

Traeger, Adrian C ; Reed, Benjamin J ; O'Connor, Denise A ; Hoffmann, Tammy C ; Machado, Gustavo C ; Bonner, Carissa ; Maher, Chris G ; Buchbinder, Rachelle. / Clinician, patient and general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain : Protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis. In: BMJ Open. 2018 ; Vol. 8, No. 2.
@article{1effae059c1c434eaf546fe425f585c7,
title = "Clinician, patient and general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain: Protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis",
abstract = "INTRODUCTION: Little is known about how to reduce unnecessary imaging for low back pain. Understanding clinician, patient and general public beliefs about imaging is critical to developing strategies to reduce overuse.OBJECTIVE: To synthesise qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient or general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a qualitative evidence synthesis of relevant qualitative research exploring clinician, patient and general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain. Exclusions will be studies not using qualitative methods and studies not published in English. Studies will be identified using sensitive search strategies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO. Two reviewers will independently apply inclusion and exclusion criteria, extract data, and use the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool to assess the quality of included studies. To synthesise the data we will use a narrative synthesis approach that involves developing a theoretical model, conducting a preliminary synthesis, exploring relations in the data, and providing a structured summary. We will code the data using NVivo. At least two reviewers will independently apply the thematic framework to extracted data. Confidence in synthesis findings will be evaluated using the GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required to conduct this review. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017076047.",
author = "Traeger, {Adrian C} and Reed, {Benjamin J} and O'Connor, {Denise A} and Hoffmann, {Tammy C} and Machado, {Gustavo C} and Carissa Bonner and Maher, {Chris G} and Rachelle Buchbinder",
note = "{\circledC} Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019470",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "2",

}

Clinician, patient and general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain : Protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis. / Traeger, Adrian C; Reed, Benjamin J; O'Connor, Denise A; Hoffmann, Tammy C; Machado, Gustavo C; Bonner, Carissa; Maher, Chris G; Buchbinder, Rachelle.

In: BMJ Open, Vol. 8, No. 2, e019470, 10.02.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinician, patient and general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain

T2 - Protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis

AU - Traeger, Adrian C

AU - Reed, Benjamin J

AU - O'Connor, Denise A

AU - Hoffmann, Tammy C

AU - Machado, Gustavo C

AU - Bonner, Carissa

AU - Maher, Chris G

AU - Buchbinder, Rachelle

N1 - © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

PY - 2018/2/10

Y1 - 2018/2/10

N2 - INTRODUCTION: Little is known about how to reduce unnecessary imaging for low back pain. Understanding clinician, patient and general public beliefs about imaging is critical to developing strategies to reduce overuse.OBJECTIVE: To synthesise qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient or general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a qualitative evidence synthesis of relevant qualitative research exploring clinician, patient and general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain. Exclusions will be studies not using qualitative methods and studies not published in English. Studies will be identified using sensitive search strategies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO. Two reviewers will independently apply inclusion and exclusion criteria, extract data, and use the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool to assess the quality of included studies. To synthesise the data we will use a narrative synthesis approach that involves developing a theoretical model, conducting a preliminary synthesis, exploring relations in the data, and providing a structured summary. We will code the data using NVivo. At least two reviewers will independently apply the thematic framework to extracted data. Confidence in synthesis findings will be evaluated using the GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required to conduct this review. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017076047.

AB - INTRODUCTION: Little is known about how to reduce unnecessary imaging for low back pain. Understanding clinician, patient and general public beliefs about imaging is critical to developing strategies to reduce overuse.OBJECTIVE: To synthesise qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient or general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a qualitative evidence synthesis of relevant qualitative research exploring clinician, patient and general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain. Exclusions will be studies not using qualitative methods and studies not published in English. Studies will be identified using sensitive search strategies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO. Two reviewers will independently apply inclusion and exclusion criteria, extract data, and use the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool to assess the quality of included studies. To synthesise the data we will use a narrative synthesis approach that involves developing a theoretical model, conducting a preliminary synthesis, exploring relations in the data, and providing a structured summary. We will code the data using NVivo. At least two reviewers will independently apply the thematic framework to extracted data. Confidence in synthesis findings will be evaluated using the GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required to conduct this review. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017076047.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052005199&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019470

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019470

M3 - Article

VL - 8

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 2

M1 - e019470

ER -