35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Digital Support Interventions for the Self-Management of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

      research-article
      , BSc, PGDip, PhD 1 , , , BSc, MSc, PhD 2 , , MSc, PhD 2 , 3 , , BMedSci, MBChB, MRCGP 1 , , MBChB 1 , , BSc, PhD 4 , , DC, PhD 2 , 3 , , MSc, PhD 4 , , PT, MSc, PhD 2 , , MSc, PhD 2 , , MBChB, MD, DRCOG, FRCGP 1
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      Journal of Medical Internet Research
      JMIR Publications
      low back pain, self-management, mHealth, eHealth

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Low back pain (LBP) is a common cause of disability and is ranked as the most burdensome health condition globally. Self-management, including components on increased knowledge, monitoring of symptoms, and physical activity, are consistently recommended in clinical guidelines as cost-effective strategies for LBP management and there is increasing interest in the potential role of digital health.

          Objective

          The study aimed to synthesize and critically appraise published evidence concerning the use of interactive digital interventions to support self-management of LBP. The following specific questions were examined: (1) What are the key components of digital self-management interventions for LBP, including theoretical underpinnings? (2) What outcome measures have been used in randomized trials of digital self-management interventions in LBP and what effect, if any, did the intervention have on these? and (3) What specific characteristics or components, if any, of interventions appear to be associated with beneficial outcomes?

          Methods

          Bibliographic databases searched from 2000 to March 2016 included Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, DoPHER and TRoPHI, Social Science Citation Index, and Science Citation Index. Reference and citation searching was also undertaken. Search strategy combined the following concepts: (1) back pain, (2) digital intervention, and (3) self-management. Only randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols or completed RCTs involving adults with LBP published in peer-reviewed journals were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias tool. An independent third reviewer adjudicated on disagreements. Data were synthesized narratively.

          Results

          Of the total 7014 references identified, 11 were included, describing 9 studies: 6 completed RCTs and 3 protocols for future RCTs. The completed RCTs included a total of 2706 participants (range of 114-1343 participants per study) and varied considerably in the nature and delivery of the interventions, the duration/definition of LBP, the outcomes measured, and the effectiveness of the interventions. Participants were generally white, middle aged, and in 5 of 6 RCT reports, the majority were female and most reported educational level as time at college or higher. Only one study reported between-group differences in favor of the digital intervention. There was considerable variation in the extent of reporting the characteristics, components, and theories underpinning each intervention. None of the studies showed evidence of harm.

          Conclusions

          The literature is extremely heterogeneous, making it difficult to understand what might work best, for whom, and in what circumstances. Participants were predominantly female, white, well educated, and middle aged, and thus the wider applicability of digital self-management interventions remains uncertain. No information on cost-effectiveness was reported. The evidence base for interactive digital interventions to support patient self-management of LBP remains weak.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The rising prevalence of chronic low back pain.

          National or state-level estimates on trends in the prevalence of chronic low back pain (LBP) are lacking. The objective of this study was to determine whether the prevalence of chronic LBP and the demographic, health-related, and health care-seeking characteristics of individuals with the condition have changed over the last 14 years. A cross-sectional, telephone survey of a representative sample of North Carolina households was conducted in 1992 and repeated in 2006. A total of 4437 households were contacted in 1992 and 5357 households in 2006 to identify noninstitutionalized adults 21 years or older with chronic (>3 months), impairing LBP or neck pain that limits daily activities. These individuals were interviewed in more detail about their health and health care seeking. The prevalence of chronic, impairing LBP rose significantly over the 14-year interval, from 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4%-4.4%) in 1992 to 10.2% (95% CI, 9.3%-11.0%) in 2006. Increases were seen for all adult age strata, in men and women, and in white and black races. Symptom severity and general health were similar for both years. The proportion of individuals who sought care from a health care provider in the past year increased from 73.1% (95% CI, 65.2%-79.8%) to 84.0% (95% CI, 80.8%-86.8%), while the mean number of visits to all health care providers were similar (19.5 [1992] vs 19.4 [2006]). The prevalence of chronic, impairing LBP has risen significantly in North Carolina, with continuing high levels of disability and health care use. A substantial portion of the rise in LBP care costs over the past 2 decades may be related to this rising prevalence.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Understanding factors affecting patient and public engagement and recruitment to digital health interventions: a systematic review of qualitative studies

            Background Numerous types of digital health interventions (DHIs) are available to patients and the public but many factors affect their ability to engage and enrol in them. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesise the qualitative literature on barriers and facilitators to engagement and recruitment to DHIs to inform future implementation efforts. Methods PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and the ACM Digital Library were searched for English language qualitative studies from 2000 – 2015 that discussed factors affecting engagement and enrolment in a range of DHIs (e.g. ‘telemedicine’, ‘mobile applications’, ‘personal health record’, ‘social networking’). Text mining and additional search strategies were used to identify 1,448 records. Two reviewers independently carried out paper screening, quality assessment, data extraction and analysis. Data was analysed using framework synthesis, informed by Normalization Process Theory, and Burden of Treatment Theory helped conceptualise the interpretation of results. Results Nineteen publications were included in the review. Four overarching themes that affect patient and public engagement and enrolment in DHIs emerged; 1) personal agency and motivation; 2) personal life and values; 3) the engagement and recruitment approach; and 4) the quality of the DHI. The review also summarises engagement and recruitment strategies used. A preliminary DIgital Health EnGagement MOdel (DIEGO) was developed to highlight the key processes involved. Existing knowledge gaps are identified and a number of recommendations made for future research. Study limitations include English language publications and exclusion of grey literature. Conclusion This review summarises and highlights the complexity of digital health engagement and recruitment processes and outlines issues that need to be addressed before patients and the public commit to digital health and it can be implemented effectively. More work is needed to create successful engagement strategies and better quality digital solutions that are personalised where possible and to gain clinical accreditation and endorsement when appropriate. More investment is also needed to improve computer literacy and ensure technologies are accessible and affordable for those who wish to sign up to them. Systematic review registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42015029846 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0359-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use.

              An international group of back pain researchers considered recommendations for standardized measures in clinical outcomes research in patients with back pain. To promote more standardization of outcome measurement in clinical trials and other types of outcomes research, including meta-analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses, and multicenter studies. Better standardization of outcome measurement would facilitate comparison of results among studies, and more complete reporting of relevant outcomes. Because back pain is rarely fatal or completely cured, outcome assessment is complex and involves multiple dimensions. These include symptoms, function, general well-being, work disability, and satisfaction with care. The panel considered several factors in recommending a standard battery of outcome measures. These included reliability, validity, responsiveness, and practicality of the measures. In addition, compatibility with widely used and promoted batteries such, as the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Lumbar Cluster were considered to minimize the need for changes when these instruments are used. First, a six-item set was proposed, which is sufficiently brief that it could be used in routine care settings for quality improvement and for research purposes. An expanded outcome set, which would provide more precise measurement for research purposes, includes measures of severity and frequency of symptoms, either the Roland or the Oswestry Disability Scale, either the SF-12 or the EuroQol measure of general health status, a question about satisfaction with symptoms, three types of "disability days," and an optional single item on overall satisfaction with medical care. Standardized measurement of outcomes would facilitate scientific advances in clinical care. A short, 6-item questionnaire and a somewhat expanded, more precise battery of questionnaires can be recommended. Although many considerations support such recommendations, more data on responsiveness and the minimally important change in scores are needed for most of the instruments.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J. Med. Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                May 2017
                21 May 2017
                : 19
                : 5
                : e179
                Affiliations
                [1] 1General Practice & Primary Care Institute of Health & Wellbeing University of Glasgow GlasgowUnited Kingdom
                [2] 2Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics University of Southern Denmark OdenseDenmark
                [3] 3Nordic Institute of Chiropractic and Clinical Biomechanics OdenseDenmark
                [4] 4Department of Public Health and Nursing Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) TrondheimNorway
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Barbara I Nicholl barbara.nicholl@ 123456glasgow.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5639-0130
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8436-1046
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0297-8267
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6664-2485
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3919-5234
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6287-5871
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5876-7410
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3355-2680
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5340-8649
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3968-6364
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9780-1135
                Article
                v19i5e179
                10.2196/jmir.7290
                5466697
                28550009
                7b4d459d-6da8-487f-9614-d140866c32e9
                ©Barbara I Nicholl, Louise F Sandal, Mette J Stochkendahl, Marianne McCallum, Nithya Suresh, Ottar Vasseljen, Jan Hartvigsen, Paul J Mork, Per Kjaer, Karen Søgaard, Frances S Mair. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 21.05.2017.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 9 January 2017
                : 29 January 2017
                : 13 March 2017
                : 18 March 2017
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                Medicine
                low back pain,self-management,mhealth,ehealth
                Medicine
                low back pain, self-management, mhealth, ehealth

                Comments

                Comment on this article