"All of these things interact, that's why it's such a wicked problem": Stakeholders' perspectives of what hinders low back pain care in Australia and how to improve it.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Nathalia Costa, Carmen Huckel Schneider, Anita Amorim, Sarika Parambath, Fiona Blyth
{"title":"\"All of these things interact, that's why it's such a wicked problem\": Stakeholders' perspectives of what hinders low back pain care in Australia and how to improve it.","authors":"Nathalia Costa, Carmen Huckel Schneider, Anita Amorim, Sarika Parambath, Fiona Blyth","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01222-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Low-quality care for low back pain (LBP) is pervasive in Australia. Drivers of low-quality care have been identified elsewhere and include misconceptions about LBP, vested interests and limited funding for evidence-based interventions. Yet, the literature that identified such drivers is not specific to the Australian context, and therefore, it is likely to represent only part of the local problem. This study aimed to determine where the most influential drivers of LBP care are in the Australian healthcare system and what could be done to address them.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinical leaders from various disciplines, academics, hospital managers, policy-makers, consumers involved in LBP advocacy, board members of relevant health profession boards and private insurers were invited to participate in one-on-one interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Interview data were analysed using content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We interviewed 37 stakeholders. Challenges that hinder LBP care in Australia included variability in care and inconsistent messages, funding models that are not supportive of appropriate care for LBP, the community's understanding of LBP, vested interests and commercial forces, difficulties in accessing timely and affordable conservative care, neglect of social determinants and health inequities, short consultations, siloed practices, uncertainties that stem from gaps in evidence and the experience of having LBP, individual and contextual variability, the mismatch between evidence and practice, the Australian healthcare system itself, the lack of political will and acknowledgement of LBP as a public health issue, stigma, the need to improve human aspects and the compensation system. When discussing factors that could improve LBP care, participants raised collaboration, changes in funding, improvement of access to - and affordability of - models of care and care pathways, public health campaigns targeting LBP, enhancement of policy and governance, increasing and better training the workforce, consideration of inequities, making improvements in information sharing and reforming the worker's compensation sector.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LBP is a wicked problem, influenced by several systemic factors. An agenda for system change in the LBP landscape should be guided by a collaborative, coherent and integrated approach across sectors to enhance quality of care and system efficiency for those who seek and provide care.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"151"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552357/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01222-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Low-quality care for low back pain (LBP) is pervasive in Australia. Drivers of low-quality care have been identified elsewhere and include misconceptions about LBP, vested interests and limited funding for evidence-based interventions. Yet, the literature that identified such drivers is not specific to the Australian context, and therefore, it is likely to represent only part of the local problem. This study aimed to determine where the most influential drivers of LBP care are in the Australian healthcare system and what could be done to address them.

Methods: Clinical leaders from various disciplines, academics, hospital managers, policy-makers, consumers involved in LBP advocacy, board members of relevant health profession boards and private insurers were invited to participate in one-on-one interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Interview data were analysed using content analysis.

Results: We interviewed 37 stakeholders. Challenges that hinder LBP care in Australia included variability in care and inconsistent messages, funding models that are not supportive of appropriate care for LBP, the community's understanding of LBP, vested interests and commercial forces, difficulties in accessing timely and affordable conservative care, neglect of social determinants and health inequities, short consultations, siloed practices, uncertainties that stem from gaps in evidence and the experience of having LBP, individual and contextual variability, the mismatch between evidence and practice, the Australian healthcare system itself, the lack of political will and acknowledgement of LBP as a public health issue, stigma, the need to improve human aspects and the compensation system. When discussing factors that could improve LBP care, participants raised collaboration, changes in funding, improvement of access to - and affordability of - models of care and care pathways, public health campaigns targeting LBP, enhancement of policy and governance, increasing and better training the workforce, consideration of inequities, making improvements in information sharing and reforming the worker's compensation sector.

Conclusions: LBP is a wicked problem, influenced by several systemic factors. An agenda for system change in the LBP landscape should be guided by a collaborative, coherent and integrated approach across sectors to enhance quality of care and system efficiency for those who seek and provide care.

"所有这些事情都是相互影响的,这就是为什么它是一个如此棘手的问题":利益相关者对阻碍澳大利亚腰背痛治疗的因素及如何改善的看法。
背景:低质量的腰背痛治疗在澳大利亚十分普遍。低质量护理的驱动因素已在其他地方得到确认,其中包括对腰背痛的误解、既得利益以及用于循证干预的资金有限。然而,确定这些驱动因素的文献并不针对澳大利亚的具体情况,因此,这些文献可能只代表了当地问题的一部分。本研究旨在确定澳大利亚医疗保健系统中对枸杞多糖症护理最具影响力的驱动因素,以及可以采取哪些措施来解决这些问题:方法:邀请各学科临床带头人、学者、医院管理人员、政策制定者、参与腰椎间盘突出症宣传的消费者、相关卫生专业委员会的董事会成员以及私人保险公司参加一对一访谈。访谈内容逐字记录。访谈数据采用内容分析法进行分析:我们采访了 37 位利益相关者。阻碍澳大利亚枸杞多糖症治疗的挑战包括:治疗的差异性和不一致的信息、不支持对枸杞多糖症进行适当治疗的资助模式、社区对枸杞多糖症的理解、既得利益和商业力量、难以获得及时且负担得起的保守治疗、忽视社会决定因素和健康不平等、会诊时间短、缺乏政治意愿,不承认枸杞多糖症是一个公共卫生问题,耻辱感,需要改善人的方面和赔偿制度。在讨论可改善枸杞多糖症护理的因素时,与会者提出了合作、改变资金来源、改善护理模式和护理路径的可及性和可负担性、针对枸杞多糖症的公共卫生运动、加强政策和管理、增加和更好地培训劳动力、考虑不公平现象、改善信息共享和改革工人赔偿部门等问题:枸杞多糖症是一个棘手的问题,受到多个系统性因素的影响。枸杞多糖景观中的系统变革议程应以跨部门的协作、协调和综合方法为指导,以提高护理质量,并为寻求和提供护理者提高系统效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信