Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of findings regarding physician-reported barriers for performing recommended assessments and diagnosis

From: Physician-reported barriers to using evidence-based recommendations for low back pain in clinical practice: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies using the Theoretical Domains Framework

TDF domain

TDF sub-domain

Specific theme from the study

Studies (participants)

Confidence in the evidence

Explanation

Performing all assessments

 Environment context and resources

Resources

GP’s do not have enough time to complete all assessments, full history, full exam and full neurological assessment

“you are lucky to have a 10-minute interview, consultation, to actually obtain a full history, and full examination, full back neurological assessment is hard”

3 (42)

Moderate3

No or very minor concerns regarding methodology, coherence, and relevance. Moderate or serious concerns about adequacy

Assessing for red flags

 Knowledge

Scientific knowledge

Lack of awareness of red flags for serious pathology

“low awareness of LBP red flags and skills in how to identify them”

1 (42)

Low2–3

No or very minor concerns regarding methodology and relevance. Moderate or serious concerns regarding coherence and adequacy

Assessing for yellow flags

 Knowledge

Scientific knowledge

A general lack of knowledge regarding what yellow flags were or their importance in relation to the management of low back pain

There were a range of views regarding when patient attitudes and beliefs become important, reflecting general uncertainty about how and why they influence pain and outcomes

4 (50)

Moderate3

No or very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations coherence, or relevance. Moderate or serious concerns regarding adequacy

 Social/professional role and identity

Professional role

GP’s do not believe it is their role to assess psychosocial factors

“All but 1 GP…thought that the assessment of psychosocial factors was not their role”

2 (19)

Moderate3

No or very minor concerns regarding methodology coherence, or relevance.

Moderate or serious concerns regarding adequacy

 Beliefs about consequences

Beliefs

GP’s were reluctant to assess yellow flags because they were unsure that that managing yellow flags was a good idea as it may lead to conflict with the patient’s expectations of GP management and adversely affect the doctor-patient relationship.

“…identifying and managing yellow flags could present conflicts with the patient’s expectations. They thought most patients expected to be managed using a biomedical and not a biopsychosocial approach, and the one found in the guidelines.”

3 (30)

Low2–3

No or very minor concerns regarding methodology and relevance. Moderate or serious concerns regarding coherence and adequacy

 Environmental context and resources

Resources

Lack of time to assess this after all the other assessments

“Most GPs mentioned that short treatment sessions, limited frequency and long intervals…restricted the capacity to assess and manage yellow flags.”

2 (19)

Moderate3

No or very minor concerns regarding methodology, coherence, and relevance. Moderate or serious concerns regarding adequacy

 Skills

Skills

A lack of skills in how to assess yellow flags and facilitating discussion around their link to pain and recovery

“The assessment of disability prognosis and psychosocial factors, essentially with questionnaires, was new for all GPs”

2 (19)

Moderate3

No or very minor concerns regarding methodology, coherence, and relevance. Moderate or serious concerns regarding adequacy

Providing a diagnosis of non-specific low back pain

 Knowledge

Scientific knowledge

Physicians thought they did not have sufficient understanding of anatomy to explain the natural healing process with non-specific low back pain.

“GPs admitted difficulties in conveying the epidemiologic concept of unspecified LBP”

2(19)

Moderate3

No or very minor concerns regarding methodology, coherence, and relevance. Moderate or serious concerns regarding adequacy

 Social influence

Social pressure

Patients want a “specific” diagnosis and lack of a “precise” diagnosis is not reassuring to them.

“The problem with back pain is making a precise diagnosis. They always complain, ‘So what is the diagnosis?’…why do they want a CT? Simply in order to get a diagnosis.”

3 (80)

Moderate3

No or very minor concerns regarding methodology, coherence, and relevance. Moderate or serious concerns regarding adequacy

 Beliefs about consequence

Outcome expectancy

Physicians did not believe providing a diagnosis of non-specific low back pain would help their patients recover because it is hard to understand.

“I do not know what you are talking about so I am sure the patients would not. Non- specific, I mean it’s not really very helpful. they have either got muscle and joint and ligament pain or they have got nerve entrapment and that’s what they want to hear, they do not want to hear terms like non-specific back pain, they want to know what it is and what it is not.”

1 (16)

Very low5

Moderate or serious methodological concerns, coherence, and adequacy

  1. CERQual Assessment: Confidence was downgraded 1 level for each of the four CERQual domains that had moderate or serious concerns defined as 1methodological limitation (the majority of the supporting data comes from studies with low methodological rigour threating the validity or reliability of the theme), 2coherence (the supporting data for the theme is drawn from studies that provided ambiguous or incomplete data that threatened the coherence of this theme), 3adequacy (the majority of the supporting data for the theme is drawn from few and/or small studies and the quality is superficial lacking sufficient richness to fully explore the theme), and 4relevance (the majority of the supporting data is of indirect, partial or unclear relevance to the theme. 5When the data come from a single study with few participants and of moderate rigour we downgraded to very low confidence. Please see Additional file 2 for a full description of the criteria used for assessing confidence in the evidence supporting the review findings using the CERQual approach