↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of shared decision-making followed by positive reinforcement on physical disability in the long-term follow-up of patients with nonspecific low back pain in primary care: a…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
The effectiveness of shared decision-making followed by positive reinforcement on physical disability in the long-term follow-up of patients with nonspecific low back pain in primary care: a clustered randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Family Practice, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12875-018-0776-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ariëtte R. J. Sanders, Jozien M. Bensing, Tessa Magnée, Peter Verhaak, Niek J. de Wit

Abstract

Although the recovery of patients suffering from low back pain is highly context dependent, patient preferences about treatment options are seldom incorporated into the therapeutic plan. Shared decision-making (SDM) offers a tool to overcome this deficiency. The reinforcement by the general practitioner (GP) of a 'shared' chosen therapy might increase patients' expectations of favourable outcomes and thus contribute to recovery. In the Netherlands, a clustered randomised controlled trial was performed to assess the effectiveness of shared decision-making followed by positive reinforcement of the chosen therapy (SDM&PR) on patient-related clinical outcomes. Overall, 68 GPs included 226 patients visiting their GP for a new episode of non-chronic low back pain. GPs in the intervention group were trained in implementing SDM&PR using a structured training programme with a focus on patient preferences in reaching treatment decisions. GPs in the control group provided care as usual. The primary outcome was the change in physical disability measured with the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RMD) during the six-month follow-up after the first consultation. Physical disability (RMD), pain, adequate relief, absenteeism and healthcare consumption at 2, 6, 12 and 26 weeks were secondary outcomes. A multivariate analysis with a mixed model was used to estimate the differences in outcomes. Of the patients in the intervention and the control groups, 66 and 62%, respectively, completed the follow-up. Most patients (77%) recovered to no functional restrictions due to back pain within 26 weeks. No significant differences in the mean scores for any outcome were observed between intervention patients and controls during the follow-up, and in multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference in the main outcome during the six-month follow-up. Patients in the intervention group reported more involvement in decision-making. This study did not detect any improvement in clinical outcome or in health care consumption of patients with non-chronic low back pain after the training of GPs in SDM&PR. The implementation of SDM merely introduces task-oriented communication. The training of the GPs may have been more effective if it had focused more on patient-oriented communication techniques and on stressing the expectation of favourable outcomes. The Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR) number: NTR1960. The trial was registered in the NTR on August 20, 2009.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 34%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Unspecified 3 10%
Other 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 28%
Unspecified 7 24%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 3 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 September 2019.
All research outputs
#2,122,167
of 13,801,769 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#299
of 1,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,605
of 271,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,801,769 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,381 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,279 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them