↓ Skip to main content

A focus group study to understand biases and confounders in a cluster randomized controlled trial on low back pain in primary care in Norway

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A focus group study to understand biases and confounders in a cluster randomized controlled trial on low back pain in primary care in Norway
Published in
BMC Primary Care, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12875-018-0759-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erik L. Werner, Ida Løchting, Kjersti Storheim, Margreth Grotle

Abstract

Cluster randomized controlled trials are often used in research in primary care but creates challenges regarding biases and confounders. We recently presented a study on low back pain from primary care in Norway with equal effects in the intervention and the control group. In order to understand the specific mechanisms that may produce biases in a cluster randomized trial we conducted a focus group study among the participating health care providers. The aim of this study was to understand how the participating providers themselves influenced on the study and thereby possibly on the results of the cluster randomized controlled trial. The providers were invited to share their experiences from their participation in the COPE study, from recruitment of patients to accomplishment of either the intervention or control consultations. Six clinicians from the intervention group and four from the control group took part in the focus group interviews. The group discussions focused on feasibility of the study in primary care and particularly on identifying potential biases and confounders in the study. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed according to a systematic text condensation. The themes for the analysis emerged from the group discussions. A personal interest for back pain, logistic factors at the clinics and an assessment of the patients' capacity to accomplish the study prior to their recruitment was reported. The providers were allowed to provide additional therapy to the intervention and it turned out that some of these could be regarded as opposed to the messages of the intervention. The providers seemed to select different items from the educational package according to personal beliefs and their perception of the patients' acceptance. The study disclosed several potential biases to the COPE study which may have impacted on the study results. Awareness of these is highly important when planning and conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial. Procedures in the recruitment of both providers and patients seem to be key factors and the providers should be aware of their role in a scientific study in order to standardize the provision of the intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 8 12%
Other 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 27 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 27 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,027,633
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#375
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,327
of 343,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#8
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 343,970 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.