Accessible Patient Education Materials for Low Back Pain Rarely Meet People's Information Needs: A Scoping Review.

IF 1.6 Q3 RHEUMATOLOGY
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.

Abstract Image

可获得的腰痛患者教育材料很少能满足人们的信息需求:一项范围审查。
背景:患者教育是治疗非特异性腰痛(LBP)患者的基石。然而,人们对无障碍患者教育材料(PEMs)是否满足人们的信息需求知之甚少。方法:我们按照JBI方法进行了范围综述,并根据PRISMA-ScR报告了结果。我们系统地回顾了三个数据库:Ovid MEDLINE、Scopus和CINAHL。搜索策略是使用PRESS检查表迭代开发和同行评审的。符合条件的研究必须提供为LBP患者设计的完整的PEM。研究选择和数据提取独立进行,一式两份。五名审稿人进行了基于共识的分析,独立地将PEM内容与来自先前研究的八类信息需求进行匹配。结果:在9617篇引用中,23篇研究符合纳入标准,产生41篇独特的PEMs。由于缺少研究中使用的PEM,我们排除了许多引用(67.3%)。大多数宣传材料是英文的(95%),采用海报、小册子或传单的形式。只有8个项目管理人员(19.5%)报告了可读性评估。8项研究报告了利益相关者的参与。在有利益相关者输入的项目管理项目中,来自PROGRESS +框架的特征很少被披露。只有一个PEM解决了所有八个确定的信息需求。最常见的信息需求是治疗方案(65.9%)和影像学(61.0%),而关于预后和耀斑管理的信息很少(17.1%)。结论:非特异性LBP的无障碍PEMs很少能满足患者全方位的信息需求。改善利益相关者的参与和可读性评估对于提高教育资源的有用性和公平性至关重要。
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
Musculoskeletal Care
Musculoskeletal Care RHEUMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
88
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信