George Institute for Global Health, Universidade Cidade São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Jan 15;38(2):148-56. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318267a92f.
Survey report.
To reassess an existing list of research priorities in primary care low back pain (LBP) and to develop a new research agenda.
Primary care LBP researchers developed an agenda of research priorities in 1997 at an international conference. In 2009, a survey was conducted to re-evaluate the 1997 research priorities and to develop a new research agenda.
Two-phase, Internet-based survey of participants in one of the LBP primary care research fora. The first phase collected information on importance, feasibility, and progress for the 1997 priorities; during this phase, the respondents were also asked to list the 5 most important current primary care-relevant LBP research questions. The second phase ranked these current research priorities.
A total of 179 persons responded to the first phase, representing 30% of those surveyed. Rankings of the 1997 priorities were somewhat similar compared with 2009, although research on beliefs and expectations and improving the quality of LBP research became more important, and research on guidelines and psychosocial interventions became less important. Organizing more effective primary care for LBP, implementing best practices, and translating research to practice were ranked higher compared with 1997. Most priorities were also ranked as relatively feasible. The new agenda was similar, and included subgroup-based treatment and studies on causes and mechanisms of LBP as new top priorities.
Changes in research priorities seem to reflect recent advances, new opportunities, and limitations in our ability to improve care.
调查报告。
重新评估初级保健下腰痛（LBP）现有研究重点清单，并制定新的研究议程。
初级保健 LBP 研究人员于 1997 年在一次国际会议上制定了一项研究议程。2009 年，进行了一项调查，以重新评估 1997 年的研究重点，并制定新的研究议程。
基于互联网的两阶段调查，调查参与者是 LBP 初级保健研究论坛之一的成员。第一阶段收集了 1997 年重点研究的重要性、可行性和进展信息；在此阶段，还要求受访者列出当前与初级保健相关的 5 个最重要的 LBP 研究问题。第二阶段对这些当前的研究重点进行了排名。
共有 179 人回应了第一阶段的调查，占调查对象的 30%。与 2009 年相比，1997 年重点研究的排名有些相似，尽管对信念和期望的研究以及提高 LBP 研究质量的研究变得更加重要，而对指南和心理社会干预的研究变得不那么重要。与 1997 年相比，为 LBP 提供更有效的初级保健组织、实施最佳实践以及将研究转化为实践的排名更高。大多数重点研究也被评为相对可行。新议程也相似，包括基于亚组的治疗和 LBP 病因和机制的研究作为新的首要重点。
研究重点的变化似乎反映了最近的进展、新的机会以及我们改善护理的能力的限制。
