A focus group study to understand biases and confounders in a cluster randomized controlled trial on low back pain in primary care in Norway

1Citations
Citations of this article
88Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Cluster randomized controlled trials are often used in research in primary care but creates challenges regarding biases and confounders. We recently presented a study on low back pain from primary care in Norway with equal effects in the intervention and the control group. In order to understand the specific mechanisms that may produce biases in a cluster randomized trial we conducted a focus group study among the participating health care providers. The aim of this study was to understand how the participating providers themselves influenced on the study and thereby possibly on the results of the cluster randomized controlled trial. Methods: The providers were invited to share their experiences from their participation in the COPE study, from recruitment of patients to accomplishment of either the intervention or control consultations. Six clinicians from the intervention group and four from the control group took part in the focus group interviews. The group discussions focused on feasibility of the study in primary care and particularly on identifying potential biases and confounders in the study. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed according to a systematic text condensation. The themes for the analysis emerged from the group discussions. Results: A personal interest for back pain, logistic factors at the clinics and an assessment of the patients' capacity to accomplish the study prior to their recruitment was reported. The providers were allowed to provide additional therapy to the intervention and it turned out that some of these could be regarded as opposed to the messages of the intervention. The providers seemed to select different items from the educational package according to personal beliefs and their perception of the patients' acceptance. Conclusion: The study disclosed several potential biases to the COPE study which may have impacted on the study results. Awareness of these is highly important when planning and conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial. Procedures in the recruitment of both providers and patients seem to be key factors and the providers should be aware of their role in a scientific study in order to standardize the provision of the intervention.

References Powered by Scopus

Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance

3711Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Systematic text condensation: A strategy for qualitative analysis

1576Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

‘Clear as Mud’: Toward Greater Clarity in Generic Qualitative Research

623Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Evaluation of training in guideline-oriented biopsychosocial management of low back pain in occupational health services: Protocol of a cluster randomized trial

1Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Werner, E. L., Løchting, I., Storheim, K., & Grotle, M. (2018). A focus group study to understand biases and confounders in a cluster randomized controlled trial on low back pain in primary care in Norway. BMC Family Practice, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-018-0759-9

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 29

74%

Researcher 8

21%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

3%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Nursing and Health Professions 23

57%

Medicine and Dentistry 13

33%

Social Sciences 2

5%

Sports and Recreations 2

5%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free