Skip to main content

Table 6 Summary of findings regarding physician-reported perspective about why they use imaging to manage back pain

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 domains

TDF

sub-domain

Specific theme from the study

Studies (participants)

Confidence in the evidence

Explanation

Social influence

Social pressure

The patients ask for an image (in some cases because they want a diagnosis) and the GP feels pressured to request one.

“A reason mentioned in all focus groups … was that patients with low back pain often expected, and sometimes even requested or demanded, these tests, despite the physician’s explanation that an imaging test was not (yet) warranted.”

9 (252)

High

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

Intergroup conflict

GPs will order an image to avoid conflict with a patient’s wishes.

“GPs might order ‘non indicated’ X-rays …to limit conflict.”

3 (104)

Very Low 1,2,3

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

Beliefs about consequence

Consequences

GPs fear blame or legal action if they do not send for scans.

“GPs said they ordered radiography because of…. possible legal actions.”

4 (126)

Low 2,3

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

Consequences

GPs may order an image if they thought it would improve trust in the doctor-patient relationship.

“If they thought that ordering an imaging test would enhance patient’s trust (or that denying one might undermine it), a test might be ordered when it was not strictly medically indicated”

5 (101)

Low 2,3

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

Outcome expectancy

GPs believe scans will reassure patients that nothing is wrong.

“Sometimes an x-ray can take away the fear, and thus prevent chronicity.’ Another agreed. ‘When patients worry, that is a heavy argument; you need the reassurance (gained from further tests) to go on with the patient”

6 (175)

High

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

Skills

Skills

Lack of communication skills to convince the patient that there was nothing wrong.

“If it seemed unlikely they would not be able to convince the patient with a reasonable effort, they would simply order the test”

3 (101)

Moderate 3

No or very minor concerns regarding methodology, coherence and relevance

Moderate or serious concerns regarding adequacy.

Skills

GPs thought they used radiography because they lacked skills in clinical examination of the back.

“Some GPs thought they overused radiography because they lacked skills in clinical examination: We have got so much to work with that…many (of us)…will never be any good at examining a back.”

1 (13)

Low 2,3

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

Environment context and resources

Resources

GP’s do not have enough time to negotiate or explain the diagnosis so they order an x-ray.

“Sometime I find myself referring a patient for X-ray in order to clear the waiting room and allow myself two minutes of breathing time. Meanwhile the patient keeps quiet, while I write the referral. Sometimes you find yourself doing this and it goes against any reasoning or logic”

6 (179)

High

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

Resources

If GPs perceive a long wait for an image, and they may eventually want to order one, they may order it early, even if not indicated at that time.

“They indicated if they perceive there was a long waiting period for a service the patient might eventually need (such as a CT, or MRI scan), they might order one earlier than they thought was really necessary just to get the patient in the queue.”

2 (38)

Low2,3

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

Resources

There is no alternative to offer the patient instead of the image.

2 (?)

Moderate 3

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

Organisational culture

GPs would refer if the patient may need them for medico-legal cases, e.g. if the patient needed to make an insurance claim later on.

“GPs also ordered radiography to secure documentation in case the patient claimed for insurance compensation…”

4 (72)

Moderate 3

No or very minor concerns regarding methodology, coherence and relevance

Moderate or serious concerns regarding adequacy.

Organisational culture

GPs refer for an image if other treatment providers (physiotherapists, specialists) required a scan before evaluating the patient.

“GPs said physiotherapists might want radiography before giving (further) treatment, surgeons before evaluating patients clinically, and radiologists before or in addition to performing CT.”

4 (93)

Moderate 3

No or very minor concerns regarding methodology, coherence and relevance

Moderate or serious concerns regarding adequacy.

Organisational culture

GPs reported sending for scans if they were required for sick certification or short-term disability.

“Social security might request radiography to establish facts before considering (continued) sickness certification or disability pension (…contributing to and endless dance in the X-ray corridors). To help patients get further economical support, GPs usually complied with such pressures, although they often found radiography unnecessary by clinical criteria.”

2 (23)

Moderate 3

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

Moderate or serious concerns regarding 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