Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of findings regarding physician-reported barriers to providing activity advice

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

Knowledge

Knowledge (scientific rationale)

Unsure about how, why and when exercise might be helpful

“Views about activity were informed by guideline recommendations, but there was uncertainty as to how or why exercise might be helpful”

4 (114)

Moderate3

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

Procedural

Knowledge of what activity to advise on based on patient factors/circumstances

“Much of the advice which participants reported conveying to patients contained mixed messages and reinforced the need to be active and protective at the same time.”

2 (21)

Moderate3

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

Social influence

Intergroup conflict

Conflict between patient and physician wishes in which the physician felt the patient perceived physical activity to be counter intuitive and considered rest to be the best option or perception that patients did not want activity advice.

“Changing the belief of patients who considered rest to be the best treatment could be challenging”

5 (131)

Moderate3

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

Skills

Skills

Lack of skills to negotiate why activity is ok when the patient considered rest to be the best treatment

“GPs reported that they felt patients perceived physical activity as counter-intuitive to the ‘warning sign’ that pain signified stress to the body, and therefore, one needed to rest.”

2 (21)

Moderate3

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

Environment context and resources

Resources

Lack of time to give advice

“Limited time to explain why patient does not need an x-ray and explain advice to stay active”

1 (42)

Low 2,3

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

Memory

Memory

Forget to give advice

“GPs forget to give advice to stay active in standard consultation”

1 (42)

Low 2,3

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