Chloé Debonne, Axel Houdart, Chloé Cachinho, Alexy Ouvrier-Neyret, Thomas Gérard, Valentin Vaillant, Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Maxime Sasseville, Simon Décary, Florian Naye
{"title":"Accessible Patient Education Materials for Low Back Pain Rarely Meet People's Information Needs: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Chloé Debonne, Axel Houdart, Chloé Cachinho, Alexy Ouvrier-Neyret, Thomas Gérard, Valentin Vaillant, Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Maxime Sasseville, Simon Décary, Florian Naye","doi":"10.1002/msc.70130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient education is a cornerstone of care for individuals with non-specific low back pain (LBP). However, little is known about whether accessible patient education materials (PEMs) meet people's information needs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review following the JBI methodology and reported results according to PRISMA-ScR. We systematically reviewed three databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL. The search strategy was iteratively developed and peer-reviewed using the PRESS checklist. Eligible studies had to provide full access to the PEM designed for people with LBP. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. Five reviewers conducted a consensus-based analysis by independently matching PEM content to eight categories of information needs derived from previous research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 9617 citations identified, 23 studies met inclusion criteria, yielding 41 unique PEMs. We excluded many citations (67.3%) because the PEM used in the study was missing. Most PEMs were in English (95%) and took the form of posters, booklets, or leaflets. Only eight PEMs (19.5%) reported readability assessment. Stakeholder involvement was reported in eight studies. Among PEMs with stakeholder input, characteristics from the PROGRESS + framework were rarely disclosed. Only one PEM addressed all eight identified information needs. The most frequently covered information needs were treatment options (65.9%) and imaging (61.0%), while information on prognosis and flare management was scarce (17.1%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Accessible PEMs for non-specific LBP rarely meet the full spectrum of patient information needs. Improving stakeholder involvement and readability assessment is essential to enhance the usefulness and equity of educational resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":46945,"journal":{"name":"Musculoskeletal Care","volume":"23 2","pages":"e70130"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12124170/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Musculoskeletal Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.70130","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Patient education is a cornerstone of care for individuals with non-specific low back pain (LBP). However, little is known about whether accessible patient education materials (PEMs) meet people's information needs.
Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the JBI methodology and reported results according to PRISMA-ScR. We systematically reviewed three databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL. The search strategy was iteratively developed and peer-reviewed using the PRESS checklist. Eligible studies had to provide full access to the PEM designed for people with LBP. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. Five reviewers conducted a consensus-based analysis by independently matching PEM content to eight categories of information needs derived from previous research.
Results: Of 9617 citations identified, 23 studies met inclusion criteria, yielding 41 unique PEMs. We excluded many citations (67.3%) because the PEM used in the study was missing. Most PEMs were in English (95%) and took the form of posters, booklets, or leaflets. Only eight PEMs (19.5%) reported readability assessment. Stakeholder involvement was reported in eight studies. Among PEMs with stakeholder input, characteristics from the PROGRESS + framework were rarely disclosed. Only one PEM addressed all eight identified information needs. The most frequently covered information needs were treatment options (65.9%) and imaging (61.0%), while information on prognosis and flare management was scarce (17.1%).
Conclusion: Accessible PEMs for non-specific LBP rarely meet the full spectrum of patient information needs. Improving stakeholder involvement and readability assessment is essential to enhance the usefulness and equity of educational resources.
期刊介绍:
Musculoskeletal Care is a peer-reviewed journal for all health professionals committed to the clinical delivery of high quality care for people with musculoskeletal conditions and providing knowledge to support decision making by professionals, patients and policy makers. This journal publishes papers on original research, applied research, review articles and clinical guidelines. Regular topics include patient education, psychological and social impact, patient experiences of health care, clinical up dates and the effectiveness of therapy.