Skip to main content

Table 7 Summary of findings regarding physician-reported barriers to referring for recommended conservative or specialist consultations

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

Behaviour: referring to adjunct conservative treatments: physiotherapy or pain management programs

 Knowledge

Knowledge of condition/scientific rationale

GPs unfamiliar with conservative interventions besides medication such as CBT

“Most GPs were unfamiliar with the conservative interventions other than medication, such as cognitive-behavioural therapy, spinal manipulations, and exercises.”

2 (80)

Very low 1,3

Moderate or serious concerns regarding methodology, coherence and adequacy.

Scientific rationale

Do not believe that referrals to physical therapy work

“It was striking that half of the GPs did not consider physical therapy to be beneficial at all. One said, ‘I think physical therapy is never necessary for this matter.’”

1 (31)

Very low 5

Moderate or serious concerns regarding, coherence and adequacy.

 Environment context and resources

Resources

Lack of services and long wait times for physiotherapy

“…structural barriers like lack of access to recommend treatment options prevent guideline-concordant patient management”

5 (82)

High

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

Behaviour: referring to specialist services: orthopaedics; surgical consults

 Social influence

Social pressure

Physicians are often pressured to make referrals even if they do not think they are required because solicitors request then for medico-legal patients

“Most of these medico-legal patients are referred to us by their solicitors for referral to orthopaedics, I would often tell them to ask their solicitor to do the referral”

1 (7)

Low2,3

Moderate or serious concerns regarding methodology, 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