↓ Skip to main content

Developing and testing a measure of consultation-based reassurance for people with low back pain in primary care: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, July 2016
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 (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Developing and testing a measure of consultation-based reassurance for people with low back pain in primary care: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-1144-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola Holt, Tamar Pincus

Abstract

Reassurance from physicians is commonly recommended in guidelines for the management of low back pain (LBP), but the process of reassurance and its impact on patients is poorly researched. We aimed to develop a valid and reliable measure of the process of reassurance during LBP consultations. Items representing the data-gathering stage of the consultation and affective and cognitive reassurance were generated from literature on physician-patient communication and piloted with expert researchers and physicians, a Patient and Public Involvement group, and LBP patients to form a questionnaire. Patients presenting for LBP at 43 General Practice surgeries were sent the questionnaire. The questionnaire was analysed with Rasch modelling, using two samples from the same population of recent LBP consultations: the first (n = 157, follow-up n = 84) for exploratory analysis and the second (n = 162, follow-up n = 74) for confirmatory testing. Responses to the questionnaire were compared with responses to satisfaction and enablement scales to assess the external validity of the items, and participants completed the questionnaire again one-week later to assess test-retest reliability. The questionnaire was separated into four subscales: data-gathering, relationship-building, generic reassurance, and cognitive reassurance, each containing three items. All subscales showed good validity within the Rasch models, and good reliability based on person- and item-separations and test-retest reliability. All four subscales were significantly positively correlated with satisfaction and enablement for both samples. The final version of the questionnaire is presented here. Overall, the measure has demonstrated a good level of validity and generally acceptable reliability. This is the first measure to focus specifically on reassurance for LBP in primary care settings, and will enable researchers to further understanding of what is reassuring within the context of low back pain consultations, and how outcomes are affected by different types of reassurance. Additionally, the measure may provide a useful training and audit tool for physicians. The new measure requires testing in prospective cohorts, and would benefit from further validation against ethnographic observation of consultations in real time.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 19%
Other 7 11%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Lecturer 5 8%
Other 15 24%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 21%
Psychology 4 6%
Engineering 3 5%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 18 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 30 July 2016.
All research outputs
#4,848,381
of 19,872,770 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#901
of 3,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,124
of 270,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,872,770 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 270,199 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 73% 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