Between the lines: a discursive analysis of the non-specific low back pain literature.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 REHABILITATION
Clair Hebron, Morten Ekornsaeter, Karime Mescouto
{"title":"Between the lines: a discursive analysis of the non-specific low back pain literature.","authors":"Clair Hebron, Morten Ekornsaeter, Karime Mescouto","doi":"10.1080/09593985.2024.2446530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The term nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) is often ambiguously defined and inconsistently used in scientific literature. Yet, there is limited discussion and reflection on the meaning of the term and how different meanings influence research and clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this study was to critically analyze the meaning of NSLBP in scientific literature and its consequent influence on research and clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Methodology and methods: </strong>Conducting a Foucauldian discourse analysis, we analyzed 24 articles that explicitly discussed the term's meaning. Relevant articles were retrieved through a systematic literature search of six databases, supplemented by snowballing and expert recommendations.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Our analysis identified five distinct discourses analyzing NSLBP: \"Biomedical,\" \"Neurocentric,\" \"Rational-Multifactorial,\" \"Complex-Multifactorial,\" and \"NSLBP Otherwise.\"</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Each identified discourse was underpinned by unique assumptions that both enable and constrain certain ways of thinking about, researching, and managing NSLBP. Most discourses were individual-centric, guiding a search for causes and solutions within the individual. An exception was the \"NSLBP Otherwise Discourse,\" which enables a more society-centric perspective and encourages alternative views on NSLBP. Given the significant impact of NSLBP and the paucity of substantial breakthroughs in understanding and management, critical reflection on current discourses and their influence on clinical and research practices seem timely. Moreover, considering the present uncertainty surrounding NSLBP, embracing multiplicity could pave the way for a more expansive research agenda.</p>","PeriodicalId":48699,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2024.2446530","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The term nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) is often ambiguously defined and inconsistently used in scientific literature. Yet, there is limited discussion and reflection on the meaning of the term and how different meanings influence research and clinical practice.

Aim: The aim of this study was to critically analyze the meaning of NSLBP in scientific literature and its consequent influence on research and clinical practice.

Methodology and methods: Conducting a Foucauldian discourse analysis, we analyzed 24 articles that explicitly discussed the term's meaning. Relevant articles were retrieved through a systematic literature search of six databases, supplemented by snowballing and expert recommendations.

Findings: Our analysis identified five distinct discourses analyzing NSLBP: "Biomedical," "Neurocentric," "Rational-Multifactorial," "Complex-Multifactorial," and "NSLBP Otherwise."

Conclusion: Each identified discourse was underpinned by unique assumptions that both enable and constrain certain ways of thinking about, researching, and managing NSLBP. Most discourses were individual-centric, guiding a search for causes and solutions within the individual. An exception was the "NSLBP Otherwise Discourse," which enables a more society-centric perspective and encourages alternative views on NSLBP. Given the significant impact of NSLBP and the paucity of substantial breakthroughs in understanding and management, critical reflection on current discourses and their influence on clinical and research practices seem timely. Moreover, considering the present uncertainty surrounding NSLBP, embracing multiplicity could pave the way for a more expansive research agenda.

字里行间:非特异性腰痛文献的话语分析。
背景:术语非特异性腰痛(NSLBP)通常定义模糊,在科学文献中使用不一致。然而,对该术语的含义以及不同含义如何影响研究和临床实践的讨论和反思有限。目的:本研究的目的是批判性地分析NSLBP在科学文献中的意义及其对研究和临床实践的影响。方法论和方法:进行福柯式话语分析,我们分析了24篇明确讨论该术语含义的文章。通过对6个数据库的系统文献检索,辅以滚雪球式和专家推荐,检索到相关文章。研究结果:我们的分析确定了五种不同的NSLBP分析话语:“生物医学”、“神经中心”、“理性-多因素”、“复杂-多因素”和“其他NSLBP”。结论:每个确定的话语都以独特的假设为基础,这些假设既支持也限制了思考、研究和管理非语言性bp的某些方式。大多数演讲都以个人为中心,引导人们在个人内部寻找原因和解决方案。一个例外是“NSLBP否则的话语”,它提供了一个更以社会为中心的视角,并鼓励对NSLBP的不同观点。鉴于NSLBP的重大影响以及在理解和管理方面缺乏实质性突破,对当前话语及其对临床和研究实践的影响进行批判性反思似乎是及时的。此外,考虑到目前围绕NSLBP的不确定性,拥抱多样性可以为更广泛的研究议程铺平道路。
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
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The aim of Physiotherapy Theory and Practice is to provide an international, peer-reviewed forum for the publication, dissemination, and discussion of recent developments and current research in physiotherapy/physical therapy. The journal accepts original quantitative and qualitative research reports, theoretical papers, systematic literature reviews, clinical case reports, and technical clinical notes. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice; promotes post-basic education through reports, reviews, and updates on all aspects of physiotherapy and specialties relating to clinical physiotherapy.
×
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