BMJ open · 2020
Barriers and facilitators to patient uptake and utilisation of digital interventions for the self-management of low back pain: a systematic review of qualitative studies.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Svendsen Malene Jagd, Wood Karen Wood, Kyle John, Cooper Kay, Rasmussen Charlotte Diana Nørregaard, Sandal Louise Fleng, Stochkendahl Mette Jensen, Mair Frances S, Nicholl Barbara I
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Low back pain (LBP) is a leading contributor to disability globally. Self-management is a core component of LBP management. We aimed to synthesise published qualitative literature concerning digital health interventions (DHIs) to support LBP self-management to: (1) determine engagement strategies, (2) identify barriers and facilitators affecting patient uptake/utilisation and (3) develop a preliminary conceptual model of barriers and facilitators to uptake/utilisation.
DESIGN: Systematic review following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, DoPHER, TRoPHI, Web of Science and OT Seeker, from January 2000 to December 2018, using the concepts: LBP, DHI and self-management.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed qualitative study (or component) examining engagement with, or barriers and/or facilitators to the uptake/utilisation of an interactive DHI for self-management of LBP in adults (community, primary or secondary care settings).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Standardised data extraction form was completed. COREQ (Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research) checklist was used to assess methodology. Data was synthesised narratively for engagement strategies, thematically for barriers/facilitators to uptake/utilisation and normalisation process theory was applied to produce a conceptual model.
RESULTS: We identified 14 191 citations, of which 105 full-text articles were screened, and five full-text articles from four studies included. These were from community and primary care contexts in Europe and the USA, and involved 56 adults with LBP and 19 healthcare professionals. There was a lack of consideration on how to sustain engagement with DHIs. Examination of barriers and facilitators for uptake/utilisation identified four major themes: IT (information technology) usability-accessibility; quality-quantity of content; tailoring-personalisation; and motivation-support. These themes informed the development of a preliminary conceptual model for uptake/utilisation of a DHI for LBP self-management.
CONCLUSIONS: We highlight key barriers and facilitators that should be considered when designing DHIs for LBP self-management. Our findings are in keeping with reviews of DHIs for other long-term conditions, implying these findings may not be condition specific.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: A protocol for this systematic review was registered with https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (CRD42016051182) on 10 November 2016. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42016051182.
DESIGN: Systematic review following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, DoPHER, TRoPHI, Web of Science and OT Seeker, from January 2000 to December 2018, using the concepts: LBP, DHI and self-management.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed qualitative study (or component) examining engagement with, or barriers and/or facilitators to the uptake/utilisation of an interactive DHI for self-management of LBP in adults (community, primary or secondary care settings).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Standardised data extraction form was completed. COREQ (Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research) checklist was used to assess methodology. Data was synthesised narratively for engagement strategies, thematically for barriers/facilitators to uptake/utilisation and normalisation process theory was applied to produce a conceptual model.
RESULTS: We identified 14 191 citations, of which 105 full-text articles were screened, and five full-text articles from four studies included. These were from community and primary care contexts in Europe and the USA, and involved 56 adults with LBP and 19 healthcare professionals. There was a lack of consideration on how to sustain engagement with DHIs. Examination of barriers and facilitators for uptake/utilisation identified four major themes: IT (information technology) usability-accessibility; quality-quantity of content; tailoring-personalisation; and motivation-support. These themes informed the development of a preliminary conceptual model for uptake/utilisation of a DHI for LBP self-management.
CONCLUSIONS: We highlight key barriers and facilitators that should be considered when designing DHIs for LBP self-management. Our findings are in keeping with reviews of DHIs for other long-term conditions, implying these findings may not be condition specific.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: A protocol for this systematic review was registered with https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (CRD42016051182) on 10 November 2016. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42016051182.