Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinicians’ views about the experience of disability due to low back pain. Results from a focus group study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

For clinicians, treating the cause of non-pathological low back pain (LBP) is central. For patients, it is how LBP limits their activities of daily living. Little is known about clinicians’ understanding of disability and the patient’s perspective. We conducted a qualitative study to examine how clinicians involved in the care of patients with BP describe and define disability, its associated changes, and rehabilitation.

Methods

Two focus groups (FGs) were conducted with spine specialists including eleven confirmed orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons, ten advanced residents, and five other clinicians. Participants were questioned about their views on disability, what it means to them and to the patients. Responses were collected by two independent observers using Metaplan techniques. Large stickers were used to collect participants’ responses/ideas; the stickers were posted on billboards so the FGs could check them during the discussion. Metaplan was used to aggregate responses.

Results

Disability was viewed as a major source of physical limitations, difficulties in performing daily activities, associated with emotional distress, and raising legitimacy issues. Changes in roles engaged the social component. Considered from the patients’ perspective, negative emotions and social issues were emphasized, along with the patients’ resources. For rehabilitation, the participants emphasized patient-centered care, teamwork, and objectives for care.

Conclusion

The participants pointed to disability as an umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. They underlined the necessity for clinicians to help patients define their level of optimal functioning when faced with BP, utilizing adaptation and teamwork within the therapeutic relationship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Global Burden of Disease, Injury Incidence, Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study Lancet 2016: 388:1545–1602.

  2. Hoy DG, Smith E, Cross M, Sanchez-Riera L, Blyth FM, Buchbinder R et al (2015) Reflecting on the global burden of musculoskeletal conditions: lessons learnt from the global burden of disease 2010 study and the next steps forward. Ann Rheum Dis 74:4–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, Hoy D et al (2018) What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet 391(10137):2356–2367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. World Health Organization (2001) The ICF: An overview. Switzerland, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ogden J (2012) Health psychology: a textbook. Open University Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cieza A, Sabariego C, Bickenbach J, Chatterji S (2018) Rethinking disability. BMC Med 16:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-1002-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Linton SJ, Shaw WS (2011) Impact of psychological factors in the experience of pain. Phys Ther 91(5):700–711. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20100330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Beaton DE, Clark JP (2009) Qualitative research: a review of methods with use of examples from the total knee replacement literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 3):107–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Forman J, Creswell JW, Damschroder L, Kowalski CP, Krein SL (2008) Qualitative research methods: key features and insights gained from use in infection prevention research. Am J Infect Control 36:764–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2008.03.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pope C, Mays N (1995) Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 311:42–45

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Giacomini MK, Cook DJ (2000) Users' guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care B. What are the results and how do they help me care for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 284:478–82

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kitzinger J (1995) Qualitative research. introducing focus groups. BMJ 311:299–302

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cyr J (2016) The pitfalls and promise of focus groups as a data collection method. Sociol Meth Res 45:231–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049/24115570065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Carey MA (2015) Focus group. In: Wright J (ed) international encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 274–79

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Kitzinger J (1994) The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illn 16:103–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 19:349–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dicicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF (2006) The qualitative research interview. Med Educ 40:314–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Amirabdollahian F, op den Akker R, Bedaf S, Bormann R, Draper H, Evers V et al. Assistive technology design and development for acceptable robotics companions for ageing years Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 2013; 4(2):94–112. DOI: 10.2478/pjbr-2013–0007

  19. Schnelle W, Stoltz I. The Metaplan method: COMMUNICATION tool for planning learning groups. (Metaplan Series No. 7). Goethestrasse: Germany, 1987. Retrieved from https://www.cipast.org/download/CD%20CIPAST%20in%20Practice/cipast/en/design_2_5_1.htm.

  20. Dunlap K, Anderson GB, Rademacher J, McMenamy N (2011) An interdisciplinary focus group study on students’ perceptions of preparedness for upper-division coursework in teaching and nursing. J Gen Educ 60:172–193. https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.2011.0013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rademacher J, Schumaker J, Deshler D (1996) Development and validation of a classroom assignment routine for inclusive settings. Learn Disab Quart 19:163–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cowart M, Rademacher J (1998) In my opinion: what students say about professional development schools. Teach Change 6:21–6

    Google Scholar 

  23. MacNeela P, Doyle C, O'Gorman D, Ruane N, McGuire BE (2015) Experiences of chronic low back pain: a meta-ethnography of qualitative research. Health Psychol Rev 9:63–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Froud R, Patterson S, Eldridge S, Seale C, Pincus T, Rajendran D et al (2014) A systematic review and meta-synthesis of the impact of low back pain on people's lives. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. World Health Organization (2011) World report on disability. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  26. World Health Organization (2015) WHO global disability action plan 2014–2021. Better health for all people with disability. WHO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gardner T, Refshauge K, Smith L, McAuley J, Hübscher M, Goodall S (2017) Physiotherapists' beliefs and attitudes influence clinical practice in chronic low back pain: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. J Physiother 63:132–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge all the participants to two focus groups conducted during the EUROSPINE Course "How to make your research more relevant, feasible and publishable" who have contributed to data collection for their most valuable and important contribution, as well as Julie-Lyn Noël and Sandy Sutter for their logistic support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General Medical Rehabilitation, Geneva Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, 4 Rue Gabrielle Perret-Gentil, 14, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland

    Cedraschi Christine

  2. Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, University Hospitals, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland

    Cedraschi Christine

  3. NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, Occupational and Industrial Orthopaedic Center (OIOC), New York University, 63 Downing St, New York, NY, 10014, USA

    Campello Marco

  4. NYU Robert I Grossman School of Medicine, New York, USA

    Campello Marco

  5. University Bordeaux, ISPED, Centre INSERM U1219 Bordeaux Population Health, Bordeaux, France

    Salmi Louis-Rachid

  6. INSERM, ISPED, Centre INSERM U1219 Bordeaux Population Health, 33000, Bordeaux, France

    Salmi Louis-Rachid

  7. CHU de Bordeaux, Pole de sante publique, Service d’information medicale, 33000, Bordeaux, France

    Salmi Louis-Rachid

  8. Center for Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation,, University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Oshawa, ON, Canada

    Côté Pierre

  9. Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada

    Côté Pierre

Authors
  1. Cedraschi Christine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Campello Marco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Salmi Louis-Rachid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Côté Pierre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cedraschi Christine.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts to be declared.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Christine, C., Marco, C., Louis-Rachid, S. et al. Clinicians’ views about the experience of disability due to low back pain. Results from a focus group study. Eur Spine J 29, 1953–1958 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06463-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06463-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation