↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy compared to usual care on low back pain guideline adherence among general practitioners

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 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
Effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy compared to usual care on low back pain guideline adherence among general practitioners
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3166-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arnela Suman, Frederieke G. Schaafsma, Peter M. van de Ven, Pauline Slottje, Rachelle Buchbinder, Maurits W. van Tulder, Johannes R. Anema

Abstract

To improve patient care, and to reduce unnecessary referrals for diagnostic imaging and medical specialist care for low back pain, an evidence-based guideline for low back pain was developed in the Netherlands in 2010. The current study evaluated the effect of a multifaceted implementation strategy on guideline adherence among Dutch general practitioners. The implementation strategy included a multidisciplinary training, provision of educational material and an interactive website for healthcare professionals, supported by a multimedia eHealth intervention for patients with low back pain. Adherence was measured using performance indicators based on 3 months data extracted from the contacts with patients with low back pain recorded in the electronic medical records of participating general practitioners. Performance indicators were compared between two groups: a usual care group and an implementation group. Performance indicators were referrals to consultations with medical specialists, to diagnostic imaging, and to psychosocial and/or occupational physician consultations, and inquiries about psychosocial and occupational risk factors. The electronic medical records of 5130 patient contacts for LBP were analysed; 2453 patient contacts in the usual care group and 2677 patient contacts in the implementation group. Overall, rates of referral and of recorded inquiries regarding psychosocial and occupational risk factors remained low in both groups over time. The only statistically significant difference found was a reduction in the number of referrals to neurologists in the implementation group (from 100 (7%) to 50 (4%)) compared to the usual care group (from 48 (4%) to 50 (4%), (p < 0.01)). There were no other between-group differences in referrals. In the short term, the strategy did not result in improved guideline adherence among general practitioners, and it is not recommended for widespread use. However, baseline referral rates in participating practices were already low, possibly leaving only little room for improvement. Inquiries for psychosocial and occupational risk factors remained low and this leaves room for improvement. This trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR4329 . Registration date: December 20th, 2013.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 206 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 9%
Researcher 12 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 40 19%
Unknown 89 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 38 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 17%
Sports and Recreations 7 3%
Engineering 6 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 94 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,564,477
of 23,073,835 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,778
of 7,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,007
of 325,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#135
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,073,835 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 325,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.