Talking about the pain: A patient-centered study of low back pain in primary care
Despite considerable research, low back pain (LBP) often proves resistant to treatment. This study was designed to increase the understanding of low back pain through access to patients' perceptions, beliefs, illness behaviors and lived experiences. The findings are based on focus groups, individual interviews and participant observation conducted in primary care practices and community settings in three regions in Israel. Inclusion criteria for the interviews and groups include age greater than 18 years and a history of at least one episode of LBP. Seventy-six LBP subjects between the ages of 18 and 67 (mean 39.5) participated, 65% male and 35% female. The analytic method is content analysis, consisting of a formal, multi-step process designed to elucidate inherent patterns and meanings. This research finds that LBP subjects articulate a rich world of pain sensation, awareness and meanings. From subjects' own words and experiences we present a patient-centered classification system of backache symptoms based on typical pain intensity, dysfunction, duration and treatment. An elaborate system of explanatory models of LBP and a typology of dominant coping styles designed to either minimize pain or maximize function are also derived. Subjects choose multiple conventional and alternative treatments based on "what works," and articulate ample criticisms of and suggestions for the medical system. In addition, we find that variations in the social construction of the back pain experience vary sharply, even between similar neighboring communities. Given the difficult state of diagnosis and treatment and the frustration of practitioners, attempts at greater understanding of patients' health beliefs, experiences, and behaviors are warranted. Reaching agreement between health provider and patient and addressing patient belief systems may improve outcomes.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 40 (1995)
Issue (Month): 7 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:40:y:1995:i:7:p:977-988. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.