European Spine Journal

, Volume 18, Supplement 3, pp 395–401 | Cite as

Patient information and education with modern media: the Spine Society of Europe Patient Line

  • Ferran PelliséEmail author
  • P. Sell
  • EuroSpine Patient Line Task Force
Original Article


The role of the patient as an active partner in health care, and not just a passive object of diagnostic testing and medical treatment, is widely accepted. Providing information to patients is considered a crucial issue and the central focus in patient educational activities. It is necessary to educate patients on the nature of the outcomes and the benefits and risks of the procedures to involve them in the decision-making process and enable them to achieve fully informed consent. Information materials must contain scientifically reliable information and be presented in a form that is acceptable and useful to patients. Given the mismatch between public beliefs and current evidence, strategies for changing the public perceptions are required. Traditional patient education programmes have to face the potential barriers of storage, access problems and the need to keep content materials up to date. A computer-based resource provides many advantages, including “just-in-time” availability and a private learning environment. The use of the Internet for patient information needs will continue to expand as Internet access becomes readily available. However, the problem is no longer in finding information, but in assessing the credibility and validity of it. Health Web sites should provide health information that is secure and trustworthy. The large majority of the Web sites providing information related to spinal disorders are of limited and poor quality. Patient Line (PL), a patient information section in the Web site of Eurospine, was born in 2005 to offer patients and the general population the accumulated expertise represented by the members of the society and provide up-to-date information related to spinal disorders. In areas where evidence is scarce, Patient Line provides a real-time opinion of the EuroSpine membership. The published data reflect the pragmatic and the common sense range of treatments offered by the Eurospine membership. The first chapters have been dedicated to sciatica, scoliosis, cervical pain syndromes, low back pain and motion preservation surgery. Since 2008, the information has been available in English, German, French and Spanish. The goal is for Patient Line to become THE European patient information Web site on spinal disorders, providing reliable and updated best practice and evidence-based information where the evidence exists.


Spine surgery Patient information Patient Line 


Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Boyer C, Gaudinat A, Baujard V, Geissbühler A (2007) Health on the net foundation: assessing the quality of health pages all over the world. Stud Health Technol Inform 129(Pt 2):1017–1021PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buchbinder R, Jolley D (2005) Effects of a media campaign on back beliefs is sustained 3 years after its cessation. Spine 30:1323–1330. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000164121.77862.4b PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buchbinder R, Jolley D (2007) Improvements in general practitioner beliefs and stated management of back pain persist 4.5 years after the cessation of a public health media campaign. Spine 32:E156–E162. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000256885.00681.00 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buchbinder R, Jolley D, Wyatt M (2001) 2001 Volvo award winner in clinical studies: effects of media campaign on back pain beliefs and its potential influence on management of low back pain in general practice. Spine 26:2535–2542. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200112010-00005 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burton K, Waddell G, Burtt R (1996) Patient educational material in the management of low back pain in primary care. Hosp Jt Dis 55:138–141Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Butler L, Foster NE (2003) Back pain online. a cross-sectional survey of the quality of Web-based information on low back pain. Spine 28:395–401. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200302150-00017 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D (1999) Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? BMJ 318:318–322PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Engers A, Jellena P, Wensing M, van der Windt DA, Grol R, van Tulder MW (2008) Individual patient education for low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD004057(publ 3). doi: 10.1002/14651858
  9. 9.
    Finset A (2007) Patient education and counselling in a changing era of health care. Patient Educ Couns 66:2–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gross DP, Ferrari R, Russell AS, Battié MC, Schopflocher D, Hu RW, Waddell G, Buchbinder R (2006) A population-based survey of back pain beliefs in Canada. Spine 31:2142–2145. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000231771.14965.e4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gysels M, Higginson IJ (2007) Interactive technologies and videotapes for patient education in cancer care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Support Care Cancer 15:7–20. doi: 10.1007/s00520-006-0112-z PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haas M, Groupp E, Muench J (2005) Chronic disease self-management program for low back pain in the elderly. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 28:228–237. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.03.010 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henrotin YE, Cedraschi C, Duplan B, Bazin T, Duquesnoy B (2006) Information and low back pain management: a systematic review. Spine 31:E326–E334. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000217620.85893.32 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heymans MW, van Tulder MW, Bombardier C, Koes BW (2005) Back schools for non-specific low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine 30:2153–2163. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000182227.33627.15 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hubley J (2006) Patient education in the developing world: a discipline comes of age. Patient Educ Couns 61:161–164. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.02.011 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jellema P, van der Roer N, van der Windt DA, van Tulder MW, van der Horst HE, Stalman WA, Bouter LM (2005) Should treatment of (sub)acute low back pain be aimed at psychosocial prognostic factors? Cluster randomised clinical trial in general practice. BMJ 331:84. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38495.686736.E0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    John H, Hale ED, Treharne GJ, Kitas GD (2007) Patient education on cardiovascular aspects of rheumatoid disease: an unmet need. Rheumatology 46:1513–1516. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kem176 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis D (1999) Computer-based approaches to patient education: a review of the literature. J Am Med Inform Assoc 6:272–282PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li L, Irvin E, Guzman J (2001) Surfing for back pain patients: the nature and quality of back pain information on the Internet. Spine 26:545–557. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200103010-00020 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Loveman E, Cave C, Green C, Royle P, Dunn N, Waugh N (2003) The clinical cost-effectiveness of patient education models for diabetes: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 7(22):iii, 1–190Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mathur S, Shanti N, Brkaric M, Sood V, Kubeck J, Paulino C, Merola AA (2005) Surfing for scoliosis: the quality of information available on the Internet. Spine 30:2695–2700. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000188266.22041.c2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Molenaar S, Sprangers MAG, Postma-Schuit FCE, Rutgers EJT, Noorlander J, Hendriks J, De Haes HCJM (2000) Feasibility and effects of decision aids. Med Decis Making 20:112–127. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0002000114 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Connor AM, Rostom A, Fiset V, Tetroe J, Entwistle V, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Holmes-Rovner M, Barry M, Jones J (1999) BMJ 319:731–734PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Riemsma RP, Taal E, Kirwan JR, Rasker JJ (2002) Patient education programmes for adults with rheumatoid arthritis: benefits are small and short-lived. BMJ 325:558–559. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7364.558 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Riemsma RP, Taal E, Kirwan JR, Rasker JJ (2004) Systematic review of rheumatoid arthritis patient education. Arthritis Care Res 15:1045–1059. doi: 10.1002/art.20823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shepperd S, Charnock D, Gann B (1999) Helping patients access high-quality health information. BMJ 319:764–766PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Treweek SP, Glenton C, Oxman AD, Penrose A (2002) Computer-generated patient education materials: do they affect professional practice? A systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 9:346–358. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1070 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ullrich PF, Vaccaro AR (2002) Patient education on the Internet: opportunities and pitfalls. Spine 27:E185–E188 ((Ullrich 2002))PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wofford JL, Wells MD, Singh S (2008) Best strategies for patient education about anticoagulation with warfarin: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 8:40. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-40 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ferran Pellisé
    • 1
    Email author
  • P. Sell
    • 2
  • EuroSpine Patient Line Task Force
  1. 1.Spine UnitHospital Vall d’HebronBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity Hospitals of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations