IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0225336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interdisciplinary stratified care for low back pain: A qualitative study on the acceptability, potential facilitators and barriers to implementation

Author

Listed:
  • Carmen Caeiro
  • Helena Canhão
  • Sofia Paiva
  • Luís A Gomes
  • Rita Fernandes
  • Ana Maria Rodrigues
  • Rute Sousa
  • Fernando Pimentel-Santos
  • Jaime Branco
  • Ana Cristina Fryxell
  • Lília Vicente
  • Eduardo B Cruz

Abstract

Background and objective: The SPLIT project aims to introduce an interdisciplinary stratified model of care for patients with low back pain. This study aimed to explore the acceptability and identify potential barriers and facilitators regarding the upcoming implementation of this project, based on the general practitioners' and physiotherapists' perceptions. Methods: A qualitative study was carried out supported by two focus groups, which were conducted by two researchers. A focus group was carried out with each professional group. One focus group included six general practitioners and the other included six physiotherapists. The focus groups were based on a semi-structured interview schedule, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was conducted. Results: The participants explored aspects related to the acceptability of the SPLIT project, emphasising the satisfactory amount of effort that is expected to be required for its implementation. Potential facilitators to the implementation of the model were identified, such as the participants`motivation. Potential barriers were also explored, with particular emphasis on the challenges related to the change of routine care. Lastly, the need for particular adjustments in the health services was also highlighted. Conclusions: This study`s participants highlighted the feasibility and acceptability of the SPLIT project. The identification of potential barriers and facilitators to its implementation also attained major relevance to better prepare the upcoming implementation of this project. The generalizability of findings to the larger population of relevant practitioners is limited, since only two focus groups were carried out. Therefore, this study`s findings should be considered in terms of transferability to contexts that may have some similarities to the context where the study was carried out.

Suggested Citation

  • Carmen Caeiro & Helena Canhão & Sofia Paiva & Luís A Gomes & Rita Fernandes & Ana Maria Rodrigues & Rute Sousa & Fernando Pimentel-Santos & Jaime Branco & Ana Cristina Fryxell & Lília Vicente & Eduard, 2019. "Interdisciplinary stratified care for low back pain: A qualitative study on the acceptability, potential facilitators and barriers to implementation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-18, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0225336
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225336
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225336&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0225336?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0225336. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.