The impact of income support systems on healthcare quality and functional capacity in workers with low back pain: a realist review protocol.
Healthcare
Income support
Low back pain
Realist review
Workers’ compensation
Journal
Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 04 2019
09 04 2019
Historique:
received:
07
08
2018
accepted:
25
03
2019
entrez:
11
4
2019
pubmed:
11
4
2019
medline:
10
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Low back pain is the greatest contributor to the global burden of disease and can result in work disability. Previous literature has examined the influence of personal factors, the healthcare system, workplace, and income support systems on work disability due to low back pain. Income support systems may also influence healthcare and the workplace, leading to an impact on healthcare quality and functional capacity. However, there has been little insight as to how or in what contexts this influence occurs. This realist review aims to provide an explanation of how and in what contexts income support systems impact the healthcare quality and functional capacity of people who are unable to work due to low back pain. Realist reviews are a type of literature review that seek to determine how and in what contexts a social programme such as income support leads to an outcome, rather than simply determining whether or not it works. Five initial theories about how income support systems impact healthcare quality and functional capacity are posited in this protocol. An iterative search of electronic databases for academic literature will be used to acquire and synthesise evidence that may support or refute these initial theories. Grey literature such as policy documents will be identified to characterise income support and healthcare systems and supplement contextual details. Semi-structured interviews with income support, healthcare, and low back pain experts will also be performed to complement literature searching with anecdotal and experiential evidence. At the conclusion of the review, initial theories will be supported or refuted and refined into programme theories that will be explained by evidence in context-mechanism-outcome configurations. Income support and healthcare systems are highly complex and fluid programmes. At the intersection between these systems are those with low back pain. By using realist review methods, we will provide explanatory rather than judgemental findings. The resulting multi-dimensional and contextual understanding of the impact of income support systems on important low back pain outcomes will provide valuable insight for future income support and healthcare policy development.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Low back pain is the greatest contributor to the global burden of disease and can result in work disability. Previous literature has examined the influence of personal factors, the healthcare system, workplace, and income support systems on work disability due to low back pain. Income support systems may also influence healthcare and the workplace, leading to an impact on healthcare quality and functional capacity. However, there has been little insight as to how or in what contexts this influence occurs. This realist review aims to provide an explanation of how and in what contexts income support systems impact the healthcare quality and functional capacity of people who are unable to work due to low back pain.
METHODS
Realist reviews are a type of literature review that seek to determine how and in what contexts a social programme such as income support leads to an outcome, rather than simply determining whether or not it works. Five initial theories about how income support systems impact healthcare quality and functional capacity are posited in this protocol. An iterative search of electronic databases for academic literature will be used to acquire and synthesise evidence that may support or refute these initial theories. Grey literature such as policy documents will be identified to characterise income support and healthcare systems and supplement contextual details. Semi-structured interviews with income support, healthcare, and low back pain experts will also be performed to complement literature searching with anecdotal and experiential evidence. At the conclusion of the review, initial theories will be supported or refuted and refined into programme theories that will be explained by evidence in context-mechanism-outcome configurations.
DISCUSSION
Income support and healthcare systems are highly complex and fluid programmes. At the intersection between these systems are those with low back pain. By using realist review methods, we will provide explanatory rather than judgemental findings. The resulting multi-dimensional and contextual understanding of the impact of income support systems on important low back pain outcomes will provide valuable insight for future income support and healthcare policy development.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30967157
doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1003-y
pii: 10.1186/s13643-019-1003-y
pmc: PMC6454741
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
92Références
J Occup Rehabil. 2005 Dec;15(4):507-24
pubmed: 16254752
J Occup Environ Med. 2010 Sep;52(9):900-7
pubmed: 20798647
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Dec 15;38(26):2279-86
pubmed: 24048092
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jul;10 Suppl 1:21-34
pubmed: 16053581
Eval Program Plann. 2015 Feb;48:1-9
pubmed: 25265163
J Occup Environ Med. 2015 Dec;57(12):1275-83
pubmed: 26492383
Ann Intern Med. 2017 Apr 4;166(7):514-530
pubmed: 28192789
Lancet. 2018 Jun 9;391(10137):2356-2367
pubmed: 29573870
Asia Pac J Public Health. 2003;15(2):79-87
pubmed: 15038680
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Jan 15;31(2):219-25
pubmed: 16418644
J Occup Rehabil. 2015 Mar;25(1):220-39
pubmed: 24871375
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2013 Oct;27(5):591-600
pubmed: 24315141
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Mar 15;30(6):697-704
pubmed: 15770188
Health Policy. 2013 Dec;113(3):258-69
pubmed: 24095274
Eur Spine J. 2008 Apr;17(4):484-93
pubmed: 18214554
Soc Sci Med. 2015 May;132:88-94
pubmed: 25795992
Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1545-1602
pubmed: 27733282
Health Serv Res. 2014 Apr;49(2):645-65
pubmed: 23910019
BMJ. 2018 May 17;361:k2014
pubmed: 29773537
BMJ Open. 2016 May 05;6(5):e010910
pubmed: 27150186
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Oct 15;38(22):1939-46
pubmed: 23883826
Arthritis Rheum. 2012 Jun;64(6):2028-37
pubmed: 22231424
Intern Med J. 2018 Dec;48(12):1430-1434
pubmed: 30517997
Health Policy. 2017 Aug;121(8):903-912
pubmed: 28595897
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 Feb 21;15:50
pubmed: 24559519
Med J Aust. 2018 Apr 2;208(6):272-275
pubmed: 29614943
J Occup Rehabil. 2009 Dec;19(4):419-26
pubmed: 19760488
Eur Spine J. 2018 Jan;27(1):60-75
pubmed: 28429142
J Occup Rehabil. 2019 Mar;29(1):52-63
pubmed: 29497925
Int J Health Serv. 2010;40(1):1-22
pubmed: 20198801
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
Am J Ind Med. 2017 May;60(5):472-483
pubmed: 28370474
Int J Drug Policy. 2017 Jun;44:69-83
pubmed: 28454010
Spine J. 2008 Jan-Feb;8(1):8-20
pubmed: 18164449
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Aug 1;39(17):1433-40
pubmed: 24831502
Lancet. 2018 Jun 9;391(10137):2368-2383
pubmed: 29573872