Comparing satisfaction with a participatory driven web-application and a standard website for patients with low back pain: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (part of the ADVIN Back Trial)

Telehealth Treatment for Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Review of the Current State in Mobile Health

INTRODUCTION

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is an idiopathic musculoskeletal condition that affects 4 out of 5 individuals in their lifetime and is the leading cause of job-related disability in the United States (US). The interest in interactive and dynamic telehealth treatments for LBP continues to grow, and it is important for the medical community to remain up-to-date on the state of the science.

LITERATURE SURVEY

Relevant studies published from March 2016 until March 2021 were identified through a systematic search of EMBASE, MedLine and Web of Science. The search strategy combined the concepts of back pain, telehealth and mobile applications.

METHODOLOGY

Titles and abstracts were screened to select full text randomized controlled trials or protocols and methodological quality and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Data were synthesized narratively.

SYNTHESIS

We included seven concluded randomized controlled trials and two study protocols reporting mobile health (mHealth) solutions for LBP. Six of the seven concluded trials found a significant improvement in self-reported numerical pain rating scale compared to the control group. A single trial compared a mHealth solution to physical therapy, with the majority of studies comparing interventions to "usual care." Substantial heterogeneity in reporting of sample characteristics was found, indicating a lack of standardization through the field.

CONCLUSIONS

mHealth solutions may positively impact people with LBP. Larger trials should be encouraged and the field should coalesce around a set of baseline variables for collection and reporting. As many interventions involve patient engagement, future trials should aim to further quantify adherence levels and begin to define telehealth 'doses' associated with better outcomes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The Online Patient Satisfaction Index for Patients With Low Back Pain: Development, Reliability, and Validation Study

Background

Low back pain is highly prevalent, and most often, a specific causative factor cannot be identified. Therefore, for most patients, their low back pain is labeled as nonspecific. Patient education and information are recommended for all these patients. The internet is an accessible source of medical information on low back pain. Approximately 50% of patients with low back pain search the internet for health and medical advice. Patient satisfaction with education and information is important in relation to patients’ levels of inclination to use web-based information and their trust in the information they find. Although patients who are satisfied with the information they retrieve use the internet as a supplementary source of information, dissatisfied patients tend to avoid using the internet. Consumers’ loyalty to a product is often applied to evaluate their satisfaction. Consumers have been shown to be good ambassadors for a service when they are willing to recommend the service to a friend or colleague. When consumers are willing to recommend a service to a friend or colleague, they are also likely to be future users of the service. To the best of our knowledge, no multi-item instrument exists to specifically evaluate satisfaction with information delivered on the web for people with low back pain.

Objective

This study aims to report on the development, reliability testing, and construct validity testing of the Online Patient Satisfaction Index to measure patients’ satisfaction with web-based information for low back pain.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional validation study of the Online Patient Satisfaction Index. The index was developed with experts and assessed for face validity. It was subsequently administered to 150 adults with nonspecific low back pain. Of these, 46% (70/150) were randomly assigned to participate in a reliability test using an intraclass correlation coefficient of agreement. Construct validity was evaluated by hypothesis testing based on a web app (MyBack) and Wikipedia on low back pain.

Results

The index includes 8 items. The median score (range 0-24) based on the MyBack website was 20 (IQR 18-22), and the median score for Wikipedia was 12 (IQR 8-15). The entire score range was used. Overall, 53 participants completed a retest, of which 39 (74%) were stable in their satisfaction with the home page and were included in the analysis for reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficient of agreement was estimated to be 0.82 (95% CI 0.68-0.90). Two hypothesized correlations for construct validity were confirmed through an analysis using complete data.

Conclusions

The index had good face validity, excellent reliability, and good construct validity and can be used to measure satisfaction with the provision of web-based information regarding nonspecific low back pain among people willing to access the internet to obtain health information.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03449004; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03449004

Feasibility study on recruitment in general practice for a low back pain online information study (part of the ADVIN Back Trial)

OBJECTIVE

In a future full-scale randomised controlled trial, we plan to compare satisfaction with a standard website versus satisfaction with a participatory driven web-application. The participatory driven web-application may facilitate the delivery of targeted evidence-based advice and information to patients with low back pain in general practice (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03088774). This feasibility study is intended to inform a future randomised controlled trial. The aim is to report on the lessons learned from recruitment to report on reasons for loss to follow-up.

RESULTS

We recruited 12 women and 8 men from two general practices with each practice recruiting for 3 months. Full follow-up data was available in only three patients (15%). Based on the high loss to follow-up, we do not consider it feasible to conduct the full-scale confirmatory trial as planned. Modifying inclusion criteria to include only patients expressing an interest in using online health information or randomising patients directly at the general practice, supporting them in accessing the web-application, and letting patients respond with their immediate satisfaction may improve the speed of recruitment and follow-up rates. Furthermore, the participatory driven web-application can be included in a larger multi-faceted intervention, making the combined intervention seem more relevant to study participants.

Human Factors and Sociotechnical Issues

OBJECTIVE

To summarize significant research contributions on human factors (HF) and organizational issues in medical informatics published in 2018.

METHODS

An extensive search using PubMed/Medline and Web of Science^® was conducted to identify the scientific contributions published in 2018 that address human factors and organizational issues in medical informatics. The selection process comprised three steps: (i) 15 candidate best papers were first selected by the two section editors, (ii) external reviewers from internationally renowned research teams reviewed each candidate best paper, and (iii) the final selection of four best papers was conducted by the editorial board of the Yearbook.

RESULTS

The four selected best papers are excellent contributions to the HF literature: they show the added value of HF studies by providing nice illustrated and rigorous interventions.

CONCLUSION

HF interventions are known to have great potential to contribute to efficient HIT design, but the interventions still face challenges in successfully demonstrating their value to the main stakeholders of the healthcare domain. There is a need to strengthen the demand for high-quality HF studies by increasing awareness among powerful stakeholders of the value of high-quality HF studies.