Co-creating a Choosing Wisely Leaflet Supporting the Reduction of Imaging Usage in Low Back Pain Management - A Multi-Method Study
==================================================================================================================================

* Chris Djurtoft
* Edel O’Hagan
* Monika D. Laursen
* Lars Lejbølle
* Mia Bisgaard
* Simon K. Johansen
* Kristian D. Lyng
* Morten Hoegh
* Negar Pourbordbari
* Malene K. Bruun
* Bettina Eiger
* Jesper B. Larsen
* Michael S. Rathleff

## Abstract

**Introduction** Low back pain is a global health challenge with negative consequences for both individuals and healthcare systems. The *Choosing Wisely* initiative aims to improve communication between patients and clinicians to promote informed healthcare decisions while avoiding unnecessary tests and treatments. The objective of this project is to co-create an information resource in the form of a leaflet, to be distributed in clinical settings, websites or social media targeting people with low back pain.

**Methods** This multi-method study was conducted in four stages: literature search, input from practice consultants, program theory development, and think-aloud interviews with people experiencing low back pain. Each stage was followed by a consensus meeting in which the steering group refined the leaflet based on the emerging knowledge.

**Results** The literature search highlighted patients’ need for understandable information about diagnosis, treatment options, and self-management strategies. Practice consultants emphasized concise, relatable content. The program theory identified potential mechanisms and design targets for content creation, development, and implementation of the leaflet, such as addressing patient concerns, reducing diagnostic uncertainty, offering insights into management options, and validation. Think-aloud interviews with 18 people living with low back pain informed the iteration of the leaflet, enhancing language clarification and content comprehension.

**Conclusion** We co-created a new *Choosing Wisely* leaflet, created with end-users in mind, specifically focused on reducing unnecessary imaging for low back pain. Valuable feedback from end-users prompted significant revisions, underscoring the importance of involving multiple end-user viewpoints into the creation process.

Key Words
*   Low Back Pain
*   *Choosing Wisely*
*   Imaging Diagnostics
*   Co-creation
*   Patient Involvement
*   Patient Education

## Introduction

Low back pain is a significant public health concern, affecting a large portion of the population and causing a considerable impact on individual quality of life, work abilities and participation in activities [18,26,27,35,43]. Although spending on health services has increased, people seeking care for their low back pain still receive services known to provide low-value or potentially cause harm [4]. These low-value care options include unnecessary diagnostic imaging,[28] opioids,[1,48] antidepressants,[17] muscle relaxants,[6] and spinal fusion surgery [24]. This, despite international clinical guidelines finding insufficient evidence for these management options [30,42,62].

An evaluation of routine data collected from patients that attended primary care, showed that fewer than 5% of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) requested were clearly indicated [53]. This finding coupled with the growing concern of unnecessary imaging for low back pain underscores the need for strategies to improve the accuracy of imaging decisions [30,31]. The mechanisms involved are complex and may illustrate the multifaceted impact of diagnostic uncertainty, fear of making mistakes (such as defensive medicine), and patient pressure on clinicians’ decision-making processes during consultations [2,10,30,56]. Clinicians’ ability to handle diagnostic uncertainty and defensive medicine holds significance across various domains; this affects decision-making and may result in an increased number of referrals to specialized sectors and medical tests [3,8–10,55].

Patient informational resources have demonstrated efficacy in facilitating informed decision-making and improving health outcomes compared to usual care [19,59]. These materials can significantly improve health knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and patients’ active participation in decision-making [19,59]. Certain types of information prove more influential in shaping health behaviors in people living with low back pain [19,49]. Targeted information focusing on the cause and severity of low back pain has the potential to diminish obstacles to physical activity and improve their activity levels [19,49]. However, Insufficient reporting on material development limits the understanding of the effectiveness and key mechanism of the current informational resources [19,59].

*Choosing Wisely* is a healthcare campaign aimed at encouraging healthcare professionals and patients to make informed and evidence-based decisions about medical tests and treatments [23,40]. It promotes the idea of using healthcare resources wisely by avoiding unnecessary or low-value care and facilitate evidence based-decision making [40]. Previous *Choosing Wisely* campaigns have shown mixed effectiveness, in terms of clinical decision support and imaging usage [7]; most interventions focus solely on clinicians, despite that imaging requests frequently originate from patients [23,41,55]. This emphasizes the importance of targeting both patients and clinicians in co-creation processes to ensure that the materials meet their needs and address key outcomes, such as information relevance, clarity, and patient satisfaction [45,57,58].

The objective of this study is to co-create an information resource in the form of a leaflet that can be distributed in clinical settings, websites, and social media, targeting individuals experiencing low back pain. The purpose of the leaflet is to serve as a conversation tool between patients, relatives, and clinicians during consultations, aiming to reduce the use of imaging diagnostics (MRI or X-ray), when there is no clinical suspicion of serious illness.

## Methods

This project was led by a steering group (CD, LL, MDL, MB, MSR) with input from a project group (EO, KDL, MH, JBL, MKB, BE, NP). Additionally, the steering group received ongoing input from practice consultants (licensed healthcare professionals currently working with people experiencing low back pain in clinical practice) in the North Denmark Region throughout the process. This multiple-method study employed an iterative process conducted in four stages (Figure 1): 

1.  Systematic literature search aimed to answer; *“which information needs to be included in a leaflet for people experiencing low back pain?”,*

2.  Input from practice consultants to explore: *“the needs of clinical practice, what is considered important in a leaflet, and what information should be covered?”*,

3.  Development of a program theory to support the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet, and co-creation of the information resource (*Choosing Wisely* leaflet),

4.  Think-aloud interviews with adults experiencing low back pain that aimed to understand end-users’ perspectives regarding the leaflet.

![Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/07/05/2024.07.02.24309693/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/05/2024.07.02.24309693/F1)

Figure 1 
The iterative process conducted in four stages. This multiple-method study used an iterative process conducted in four stages, followed by consensus meetings within the steering group with representation of members from the project group.

Each of the four stages was followed by consensus meetings in the steering group with representation of members from the project group, which through an iterative process developed and designed the leaflet based on the generated knowledge. North Denmark Region Committee on Health Research Ethics determined that this study was exempt from ethical approval because of its non-interventional design. Signed informed consent was obtained from all participants during the think-aloud interviews. All data were stored on a local secure fileshare hosted at Aalborg University and the North Denmark Region.

### Stage 1 - Synthesis of inputs from the literature search

#### Search strategy and study eligibility

In May 2023, three researchers (CD, BE, and MSR) independently identified studies (qualitative and quantitative) published between 2000 and May 2023. Eligible studies were those focusing on information needed by adults to understand low back pain, defined according to the chronic primary musculoskeletal pain criteria outlined by Nicholas et al 2019 [47]. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed). The search strategy was initially designed by CD in collaboration with MSR, and revisions and edits to the content were provided before being validated among all members in the project group. Search terms related to education and information needs were combined with low back pain in the search strategy (appendix 1).

#### Data analysis

Relevant references were exported to Microsoft Excel 365 via PubMed, before independently selected (title/abstract) by CD, BE, and MSR. We used information from all included articles, such as qualitative statements and quantitative findings, to form the basis for the content and structure of the programme theory and *Choosing Wisely* leaflet. We summarized the main overall findings in a brief narrative summary that was discussed and agreed upon at a consensus meeting within the project group before developing the programme theory (appendix 2).

### Stage 2 – Synthesis of inputs from practice consultants

The aim of this stage was to explore the needs and preferences from clinical practice. We included (n=5) practice consultants (a general practitioner, a physiotherapist, a chiropractor, a rheumatologist, and a neurosurgeon) that provided input to the development of the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet based on their clinical expertise. These consultants were recruited from general practitioner clinics and medical networks in the North Denmark Region to ensure diverse representation. Their involvement was facilitated through written email communication including questions such as “How should a leaflet look to assist your clinical practice?”. Additionally, some shared references to illustrate their point [15].

#### Data analysis

The practice consultants’ responses were extracted into Microsoft Word 365. Each response was read by JBL and MKB, and findings were synthesized into a narrative summary. This summary was then discussed and agreed upon during a consensus meeting with all involved parties (appendix 3). These detailed perspectives were used to inform the refinement and improvement of the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet’s content and usability.

### Stage 3 - Development of a program theory to support the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet

We used the findings from the literature search and synthesis of inputs from practice consultants to construct a program theory. The program theory served as a framework for articulating and comprehending the underlying mechanisms identified through literature search and input from practice consultants and was structured in six subheadings as described by Kazi et al [36]: Target group (context); Activities; Effective mechanisms (mechanisms); Short-term outcome; Medium-term outcome; Long-term outcomes (appendix 4). MSR and SKJ synthesized the findings into a structured programme theory before presenting it to the steering and project group. The theory was subsequently iteratively agreed upon at a consensus meeting. This process ensured that the program theory accurately reflected the synthesized information and received input and endorsement from relevant stakeholders before progressing further.

We created the initial draft of the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet using the identified potential pathways and mechanisms expected to drive the leaflet’s intended outcomes. Additionally, we extracted information from existing leaflets found through searches on PubMed, Google, and Google Scholar [23,31]. The content was designed using a second person perspective, employing simple language and an informal tone, such as “it is rarely necessary for you to undergo scanning…”, to boost relatability. Any disparities were addressed through discussions and reached a consensus among the members in the steering and project group prior to initiating stage 4.

### Stage 4 - Think-aloud interviews (User testing) and refinement of the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet

We employed individual qualitative think-aloud interviews, to actively engage end-users in the development process through user testing [5,29]. The think-aloud method offers a simulation-based approach to understanding end-users’ perceptions, interactions, reasoning processes, and latent challenges associated with using the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet [5,29]. This qualitative design approach was divided into four separate sessions to ensure iterative refinement of the end-users’ perspectives, aligning it with the needs and preferences of people experiencing low back pain. It involved iterative refinement of the design based on the acquired knowledge [5,29]. All demographic data was collected via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCapTM) [25].

#### End-user involvement: People experiencing low back pain

Participants experiencing low back pain were recruited by convenience sampling using the practice consultant’ clinics in the North Denmark Region, and social media posts via Facebook. We included adults experiencing low back pain, ≥18 years old, and able to speak and read Danish. We decided to divide the interviews into separate sessions with at least five adults in each session to ensure a variety of perspectives [5,29]. We included six participants for each of the four sessions to achieve sufficient information power in the iterations [16,44]. The interview guide was first pilot tested internally within the author group, and subsequently with two individuals experiencing low back pain prior to the first interview (appendix 5) [33]. Prior to the interview participants with low back pain completed a demographic questionnaire, including items on gender, age, current low back pain (yes/no), physical activity, pain medication, low back pain duration, and pain in other body locations (appendix 6). All interviews took place online via Microsoft Teams and were video recorded. Participants were instructed to describe their thoughts as they occurred, saying what came to mind as they went through the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet [5]. MDL reminded the participants to keep talking if they fell silent, by using prompts such as *“What are you thinking of right now“*, or *“You are not saying anything right now?“*. The aim of the think-aloud interviews was to pinpoint any disparities between the participants’ interpretation of the text and its intended meaning. Additionally, MDL gathered field notes during the interviews that were later refined by reviewing the video recordings to ensure that emerging, relevant insights were identified post-hoc and addressed in the following interviews [5,29].

#### Data analysis – Iterative revisions

All changes to the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet was based on re-watching the video, notes, and transcriptions. All online interviews were transcribed non-verbatim to retain their meaning, as our goal was to focus on identifying comprehension issues as well as additional suggestions, and we did not plan to undertake an extensive thematic analysis [22,37]. After the first think-aloud session, revisions were collectively decided upon during a steering group meeting, informed by interview data, prior to moving on to the next think-aloud session. This iterative process continued until suggestions for revisions were minimized, as recommended [5,29]. The practice consultants had the opportunity to provide feedback before the first session and after the last session. The insights gained from the previous steps informed the design choices made during the modulation of the leaflet in each round. This ensured that the final leaflet was both user-friendly and aligned with the needs identified through program theory, user feedback, and expert input.

## Results

### Summary of the systematic search

The literature search emphasized that individuals with low back pain need clear and consistent information about the diagnosis, treatment options, prognosis, and self-management strategies, delivered in calming and reassuring terms (appendix 2).

### Synthesis of the practice consultants

The practice consultants emphasized a focus on providing understandable information about low back pain, self-management strategies, and treatment options to reduce the proportion of MRI scans. It was recommended that the leaflet targeted people who were at risk of poor prognosis, such as having negative thoughts about low back pain and its management. Furthermore, it was highlighted that the leaflet should be designed to be distributed by healthcare professionals with additional explanations, made available online, and possibly supplemented with QR codes linking to other materials, such as informational videos. Lastly, it was emphasized that the leaflet was kept concise, with a maximum of two pages, to ensure easy comprehension of key points and to fit within the consultation.

### Program theory and development of the Choosing Wisely leaflet

The program theory identified potential mechanisms guiding the structure, development, and implementation of the leaflet. This involved addressing patient concerns, reducing diagnostic uncertainty, providing decision support, offering insights into management options, and overcoming barriers such as patient insistence on imaging diagnostics. Short-term outcomes included reduced diagnostic uncertainty, patient reassurance, reduction of anxiety, and validating the experience, while medium-term outcomes focused on reducing both diagnostic uncertainty and physician’s fear of making mistakes, often leading to the practice of defensive medicine. Long-term outcomes encompassed decreased unnecessary imaging diagnostics, cost reduction, increased patient satisfaction, and clinicians improved understanding of integrating informational materials into patient care.

### Stage 4 – End-user testing: Think-aloud interviews

We included 18 people experiencing low back pain (six in each session). The median age of participants was 37, ranging from 20 to 80 years, and 83% were female (Table 1). The duration of the interviews ranged from 25 to 39 minutes, with a mean duration of 32 minutes.

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/05/2024.07.02.24309693/T1)

Table 1: 
Demographic characteristics. NRS (0-100) worst (last week): Numeric Rating Scale score representing the worst pain experienced by participants in the past week (0 = no pain, 100 = worst imaginable pain). NRS (0-100) average (last week): Numeric Rating Scale score representing the average pain experienced by participants in the past week (0 = no pain, 100 = worst imaginable pain). Pain (other areas): presence of pain in areas other than the lower back. Abbreviation: NRS = Numeric Rating Scale. LBP = Low back pain. See appendix 6 for full Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) questionnaire.

Most of the changes to the leaflet were made following the first two think-aloud sessions. The primary issues were the use of improper language, such as medical terminology, the need for clarification of content, and unclear phrasing. This improved the layout and usability with simplified language, visual illustrations, and a focus on practical solutions adjusted to manage low back pain. In the following sessions, although the reasons for changes remained similar, comprehension issues decreased, while participants noted an enhanced reading flow. The participants also appreciated the relatable content, such as validation of their experiences, concerns, and pain-related worries, which reflected their own lived experiences: *“I think it is really nice, this here. I must say […] because I think they’re trying to calm down your alarm bells here and guide you a bit, which I think is really nice. It’s also something that [my physiotherapist] has worked a lot on with me, ‘calm down, we’ll get it under control.’ So it could well be that we made this one here”.*

Participants mentioned that it was important that the explanations provided reassurance and was easy to read: *”It’s extremely easy to read, very accessible […] I would almost say that if I read it the first time I had back pain, it would be somewhat reassuring, like ‘okay, this isn’t something dangerous, many people have this.’ That’s the immediate impression I get from it”.*

This led us to simplify the language and add more explanatory illustrations to make the content more accessible. It was highlighted that frustration often accompanies dealing with challenging situations, particularly when it involves uncertainty of causes and not knowing the trajectory of low back pain: *”The easiest thing you can do is to start feeling frustrated when you’re dealing with something like that [low back pain]. Partly to get it described and so on […] For example, if it was hanging at the doctor’s office when I got there, I would grab it right away”.*

The participants emphasized the importance of information being concise, easy to read, and free of technical/medical terms, so that it was accessible and understandable without missing key points. Too much text or complicated words could discourage the reader from engaging with the content: *”It is not crammed with too much stuff where you think, ‘Oh, I need to read that again because I didn’t understand it at all.’ There aren’t a lot of technical terms or anything like that, so I think it is extremely easy to read, it is very accessible. And it’s not too long either, so you don’t only get halfway through and then can’t read the rest.”*

#### Refinement and co-creation of the Choosing Wisely leaflet

The *Choosing Wisely* leaflet was developed over the course of six status meetings in the steering group and subsequently approved among all members in the project group (Figure 2). In total, we made 95 changes as a result of input from think-aloud interviews from the first version of the leaflet to the last version.

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/07/05/2024.07.02.24309693/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/05/2024.07.02.24309693/F2)

Figure 2. 
The leaflet is on an A4 page that is folded in the middle. The English version of the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet have not been think aloud tested. Only the Danish version have been revised based on end-user perspectives (Think-aloud interviews). Therefore, the English version of the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet is our translation exclusively.

The leaflet consists of four sections allocated on an A4 page that is folded in the middle. It includes figures and various colours to illustrate the content. Additionally, the leaflet contains a QR code that links to a webpage with online/digital versions of the leaflet. This webpage includes detailed information and needs regarding low back pain that were identified during the think aloud interviews, supplementing the content of the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet.

## Discussion

We co-created a new *Choosing Wisely* leaflet aimed at reducing the use of imaging diagnostics in people with low back pain. Our multi-method study used a program theory to shape the content and design, and we included end-users to enhance co-creation. The initial version reflected what clinicians and researchers deemed necessary according to the program theory. However, through iterative user-testing with individuals who have lived experience of low back pain, the leaflet underwent significant changes in needs, appearance, and phrasing. This highlighted the importance of balancing theoretical theories with end-user involvement to create user-friendly health communication materials [13,20,29].

### Explanations of findings

#### Involving end users to co-create the Choosing Wisely leaflet

End-user engagement throughout the process facilitated the identification and mitigation of prevalent misconceptions regarding low back pain. Recent findings have emphasized the importance individuals place on understanding the causes of pain, as it may influence perceived management strategies, and needs for additional examinations [8,11,38,61]. Sharma et al. found that both patients and clinicians consider imaging useful for identifying the source of non-specific low back pain; patients viewing pathological findings as validation of their pain’s legitimacy [55]. Patients often seek imaging for low back pain due to the belief that it will diagnose their condition; however, they may not fully grasp the risks and harms associated with unnecessary imaging, such as increased uncertainty and invalidation of their pain [3,8,52,55]. It appears that people with low back pain resort to social media for validation [50], suggesting that clinician advice or explanations might not be resonating as intended [54]. Distilling these types of messages into scalable resources that can be widely distributed seems necessary to counteract the prevalent unhelpful messages about low back pain and reduce diagnostic uncertainty [30,31,55]. We implemented 95 modifications during the user-test which emphasizes the challenge and importance of developing structured health information aligned with the perceived needs and comprehension of the target audience.

#### Defensive medicine

Defensive medicine is widespread and needs system wide changes. The drivers of defensive medicine are complex and include both assurance and avoidance behaviors; these practices have significant implications for healthcare systems, such as increased costs and potential harms through overdiagnosis and overtreatment [32,51,52]. This includes unnecessary tests or procedures to reassure patients or protect against the risk of legal action [32,51,52]. Clinicians may feel pressured by patients or their relatives to order imaging, particularly when they lack confidence or experience, or when they wish to meet the expectations [3,52]. However, clinical factors such as patient-clinician collaboration may contribute to reduced overuse of imaging [3,52]. This combination of patient expectations and systemic or organizational pressures can lead to unnecessary imaging that may not improve patient outcomes [12,21,30,52]. The informational *Choosing Wisely* leaflet has the potential to align patient expectations and clinician beliefs regarding appropriate low back pain care, potentially mitigating defensive medicine practices [30,39]. Future studies should investigate the leaflet’s effectiveness on imaging utilization rates.Implementing evidence-based strategies

Healthcare systems need to adopt strategies that enhance implementation of evidence-based practices and guidelines to reduce treatment overuse [3,21,52]. However, implementing guidelines in complex healthcare settings is challenging because of its multiple implications, such as individual patient needs, administrative processes, and the different clinical environments [46]. Effective implementation, particularly clinician-focused and multicomponent strategies, is crucial for integrating *Choosing Wisely* guidelines into clinical settings [7]. Despite the benefits of informational resources, usage in clinical practice is low due to barriers, such as lack of funding, implementation mechanisms (i.e., context-specific needs), and support from healthcare professionals/settings [19,59]. Key facilitators include online/digital delivery, co-creation with patients, cross-sectorial collaborations, clinician training and awareness, and leadership support [19,59,60]. Therefore, we gathered a cross-sectoral group with interdisciplinary representation, engaged end-users, and implemented online delivery via QR code to address some of these potential implementation barriers. Furthermore, we developed an accompanying guide (i.e., ‘help text’) intended to support the use of the leaflet. Our intent was to create a supportive clinical environment with multiple (digital) delivery options, that encourage the use of the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet [19,23,30,39].

Current information resources often lack sufficient details on material development and structure; this heterogeneity, combined with the varying extent of the materials, may influence their adherence and effectiveness [19]. In our study, participants preferred a concise and easy-to-read leaflet. Clinicians emphasized that it should be limited to two pages to enhance usability, clarity, and practicality. People with low back pain underscored the need for the leaflet to present information clearly and comprehensively while being concise and not too long. Key points should be highlighted and not overlooked, ensuring that the leaflet does not overwhelm or discourage engagement with the content. Future research should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of this *Choosing Wisely* leaflet in real-world settings, using validated outcome measures and qualitative approaches. This could involve assessing its usage in clinical settings and its impact on the accuracy of imaging diagnostics, perceived diagnostic uncertainty, improved patient knowledge, beliefs, satisfaction, and adherence to the recommended treatment guidelines.

#### Implications

Healthcare campaigns, such as *Choosing Wisely*, play a vital role in promoting evidence-based decision-making, by promoting evidence-based guidelines, fostering patient engagement, and raising awareness among healthcare professionals at an organizational level [7,34,56]. The *Choosing Wisely* leaflet is portable and could be used by clinicians to remind and reinforce information discussed during clinical encounters to support patients understanding their diagnosis and optimizing the decision-making. It includes pictures recommended to help patients and consumers understand what is being communicated [54]. The *Choosing Wisely* leaflet is not a decision aid, but an informational resource designed to facilitate clinical discussions and inform patients about evidence-based management strategies for low back pain.

The development process facilitated iterative learning and adaptation. Our findings showed the necessity for clarity, simplicity, and relatability in patient educational materials. Through the think-aloud interviews, we implemented significant revisions based on the feedback received, highlighting the importance of involving individuals with lived experience of low back pain in developing patient materials. This fostered a deeper understanding of the rationale behind the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet’s design choices and its anticipated impacts, such as reducing diagnostic uncertainty and enhancing imaging accuracy. By incorporating diverse perspectives and fostering iterative refinement, our methodology may help future research and clinical settings to optimize their delivery of relevant health information to end-users [14]. These efforts must be sustained and adapted over time to ensure that both patients and clinicians are equipped to make informed decisions.

#### Strengths and limitations

We recruited a convenience sample of people with low back pain. These people may not be representative of the target population. Similarly, the median age of the cohort was less than the estimated population prevalence of people with low back pain indicating a potential selection bias [18]. However, by including the perspective of people across the different age groups enhanced the leaflet’s generalisability. One database was deemed appropriate for reviewing and identifying suitable content for the leaflet. The purpose was to create a scientific basis from the literature; therefore, we did not conduct a full systematic review but instead sought evidence-based information from the scientific literature to guide the content of the programme theory and *Choosing Wisely* leaflet. The inclusion of end-users, such as multidisciplinary practice consultants and people with the lived experience of low back pain ensured a comprehensive understanding of the context-specific practical needs and perspectives relevant to the leaflet’s development. This iterative approach allowed for a structured and efficient exchange of ideas, enabling end-users to review the content at their convenience and provide thoughtful, written input with multiple revisions and adaptations. However, further testing in real-world settings is necessary to ensure the leaflets efficacy and to identify potential mechanisms that can support both clinicians and patients in evidence-based decisions.

## Conclusion

We co-created a patient-facing leaflet that is intended to reduce unnecessary imaging in the management of low back pain, across healthcare sectors. The leaflet was developed, and refined, through multiple steps and methods to ensure it aligns with current evidence, local context, and patient needs. This leaflet may support patient care and outcomes by raising awareness about the harms of the use of imaging, such as overdiagnosis and overuse. Real-world implementation and outcome assessment are crucial for understanding the effectiveness, adherence, and potential impact of the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet.

## Supporting information

Supplementary Material [[supplements/309693_file05.docx]](pending:yes)

## Disclosures

This research received no specific grant or funding. No funding source had a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

## Declaration of interests

All authors state no conflict of interest. MSH has received support from non-industrial professional, private, and scientific bodies (reimbursement of travel costs and speaker fees) for lectures on pain, and he receives book royalties from Gyldendal, Munksgaard Denmark, FADL, and Muusmann publications. Otherwise, none of the authors declare conflicts of interest.

## Institutional Review Board

North Denmark Region Committee on Health Research Ethics determined that this study was exempt from ethical approval because of its non-interventional design. Signed informed consent was obtained from all participants during the think-aloud interviews. All data were stored on a secure server hosted at Aalborg University and North Denmark Region.

## Data availability

Data will be available upon reasonable request to corresponding author. For copies of the *Choosing Wisely* leaflet, see the appendix or contact the corresponding author.

*   Received July 2, 2024.
*   Revision received July 2, 2024.
*   Accepted July 5, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  [1].Abdel Shaheed C, Maher CG, Williams KA, Day R, McLachlan AJ. Efficacy, Tolerability, and Dose-Dependent Effects of Opioid Analgesics for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:958–68.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1251&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27213267&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

2.  [2].Alam R, Cheraghi-Sohi S, Panagioti M, Esmail A, Campbell S, Panagopoulou E. Managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary care: a systematic critical review. BMC Fam Pract 2017;18:79.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12875-017-0650-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

3.  [3].Blokzijl J, Dodd RH, Copp T, Sharma S, Tcharkhedian E, Klinner C, Maher CG, Traeger AC. Understanding overuse of diagnostic imaging for patients with low back pain in the Emergency Department: a qualitative study. Emergency Medicine Journal 2021;38:529.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZW1lcm1lZCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIzOC83LzUyOSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA3LzA1LzIwMjQuMDcuMDIuMjQzMDk2OTMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

4.  [4].Buchbinder R, Underwood M, Hartvigsen J, Maher CG. The Lancet Series call to action to reduce low value care for low back pain: an update. Pain 2020;161:S57–S64.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001869&link_type=DOI) 

5.  [5].Burbach B, Barnason S, Thompson SA. Using “Think Aloud” to Capture Clinical Reasoning during Patient Simulation. 2015;12:1–7.
    
    

6.  [6].Cashin AG, Folly T, Bagg MK, Wewege MA, Jones MD, Ferraro MC, Leake HB, Rizzo RRN, Schabrun SM, Gustin SM, Day R, Williams CM, McAuley JH. Efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for adults with non-specific low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2021;374:n1446.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE4OiIzNzQvanVsMDdfMTIvbjE0NDYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wNS8yMDI0LjA3LjAyLjI0MzA5NjkzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

7.  [7]. CLIFF BQ, AVANCEÑA ALV,  HIRTH RA, LEE SD. The Impact of Choosing Wisely Interventions on Low-Value Medical Services: A Systematic Review. Milbank Q 2021;99:1024–1058.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/1468-0009.12531&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34402553&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

8.  [8].Costa N, Butler P, Dillon M, Mescouto K, Olson R, Forbes R, Setchell J. “I felt uncertain about my whole future”—a qualitative investigation of people’s experiences of navigating uncertainty when seeking care for their low back pain. Pain 2023;164:2749–2758.
    
    

9.  [9].Cox CL, Miller BM, Kuhn I, Fritz Z. Diagnostic uncertainty in primary care: what is known about its communication, and what are the associated ethical issues? Fam Pract 2021;38:654–668.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/fampra/cmab023&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

10. [10].Dahm MR, Cattanach W, Williams M, Basseal JM, Gleason K, Crock C. Communication of Diagnostic Uncertainty in Primary Care and Its Impact on Patient Experience: an Integrative Systematic Review. J Gen Intern Med 2022.
    
    

11. [11].Darlow B, Fullen BM, Dean S, Hurley DA, Baxter GD, Dowell A. The association between health care professional attitudes and beliefs and the attitudes and beliefs, clinical management, and outcomes of patients with low back pain: A systematic review. European Journal of Pain 2012;16:3–17.
    
    

12. [12].Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Turner JA, Martin BI. Overtreating chronic back pain: time to back off? J Am Board Fam Med 2009;22:62–8.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiamFiZnAiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6NzoiMjIvMS82MiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA3LzA1LzIwMjQuMDcuMDIuMjQzMDk2OTMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

13. [13].Dillon EC, Tuzzio L, Madrid S, Olden H, Greenlee RT. Measuring the Impact of Patient-Engaged Research: How a Methods Workshop Identified Critical Outcomes of Research Engagement. J Patient Cent Res Rev 2017;4:237–246.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

14. [14].Djurtoft C, Bruun MK, Riel H, Hoegh MS, Darlow B, Rathleff MS. How do we explain painful non-traumatic knee conditions to adolescents? A multiple-method study to develop credible explanations. European Journal of Pain 2023.
    
    

15. [15].Dragsbæk L, Jensen TS, Arnbak B, Thomsen JL, Axelsen S, Isaksen C, Muff E, Jensen RK. The clinical relevance of magnetic resonance imaging of the lower back. Ugeskr Laeger 2023;185.
    
    

16. [16].Faulkner L. Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 2003;35:379–383.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3758/BF03195514&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=14587545&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

17. [17].Ferreira GE, McLachlan AJ, Lin C-WC, Zadro JR, Abdel-Shaheed C, O’Keeffe M, Maher CG. Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of back pain and osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2021;372:m4825.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE4OiIzNzIvamFuMTlfMTQvbTQ4MjUiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wNS8yMDI0LjA3LjAyLjI0MzA5NjkzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

18. [18].Ferreira ML, de Luca K, Haile LM, Steinmetz JD, Culbreth GT, Cross M, Kopec JA, Ferreira PH, Blyth FM, Buchbinder R, Hartvigsen J, Wu A-M, Safiri S, Woolf AD, Collins GS, Ong KL, Vollset SE, Smith AE, Cruz JA, Fukutaki KG, Abate SM, Abbasifard M, Abbasi-Kangevari M, Abbasi-Kangevari Z, Abdelalim A, Abedi A, Abidi H, Adnani QES, Ahmadi A, Akinyemi RO, Alamer AT, Alem AZ, Alimohamadi Y, Alshehri MA, Alshehri MM, Alzahrani H, Amini S, Amiri S, Amu H, Andrei CL, Andrei T, Antony B, Arabloo J, Arulappan J, Arumugam A, Ashraf T, Athari SS, Awoke N, Azadnajafabad S, Bärnighausen TW, Barrero LH, Barrow A, Barzegar A, Bearne LM, Bensenor IM, Berhie AY, Bhandari BB, Bhojaraja VS, Bijani A, Bodicha BBA, Bolla SR, Brazo-Sayavera J, Briggs AM, Cao C, Charalampous P, Chattu VK, Cicuttini FM, Clarsen B, Cuschieri S, Dadras O, Dai X, Dandona L, Dandona R, Dehghan A, Demie TGG, Denova-Gutiérrez E, Dewan SMR, Dharmaratne SD, Dhimal ML, Dhimal M, Diaz D, Didehdar M, Digesa LE, Diress M, Do HT, Doan LP, Ekholuenetale M, Elhadi M, Eskandarieh S, Faghani S, Fares J, Fatehizadeh A, Fetensa G, Filip I, Fischer F, Franklin RC, Ganesan B, Gemeda BNB, Getachew ME, Ghashghaee A, Gill TK, Golechha M, Goleij P, Gupta B, Hafezi-Nejad N, Haj-Mirzaian A, Hamal PK, Hanif A, Harlianto NI, Hasani H, Hay SI, Hebert JJ, Heidari G, Heidari M, Heidari-Soureshjani R, Hlongwa MM, Hosseini M-S, Hsiao AK, Iavicoli I, Ibitoye SE, Ilic IM, Ilic MD, Islam SMS, Janodia MD, Jha RP, Jindal HA, Jonas JB, Kabito GG, Kandel H, Kaur RJ, Keshri VR, Khader YS, Khan EA, Khan MJ, Khan MAB, Khayat Kashani HR, Khubchandani J, Kim YJ, Kisa A, Klugarová J, Kolahi A-A, Koohestani HR, Koyanagi A, Kumar GA, Kumar N, Lallukka T, Lasrado S, Lee W-C, Lee YH, Mahmoodpoor A, Malagón-Rojas JN, Malekpour M-R, Malekzadeh R, Malih N, Mehndiratta MM, Mehrabi Nasab E, Menezes RG, Mentis A-FA, Mesregah MK, Miller TR, Mirza-Aghazadeh-Attari M, Mobarakabadi M, Mohammad Y, Mohammadi E, Mohammed S, Mokdad AH, Momtazmanesh S, Monasta L, Moni MA, Mostafavi E, Murray CJL, Nair TS, Nazari J, Nejadghaderi SA, Neupane S, Neupane Kandel S, Nguyen CT, Nowroozi A, Okati-Aliabad H, Omer E, Oulhaj A, Owolabi MO, Panda-Jonas S, Pandey A, Park E-K, Pawar S, Pedersini P, Pereira J, Peres MFP, Petcu I-R, Pourahmadi M, Radfar A, Rahimi-Dehgolan S, Rahimi-Movaghar V, Rahman M, Rahmani AM, Rajai N, Rao CR, Rashedi V, Rashidi M-M, Ratan ZA, Rawaf DL, Rawaf S, Renzaho AMN, Rezaei N, Rezaei Z, Roever L, Ruela G de A, Saddik B, Sahebkar A, Salehi S, Sanmarchi F, Sepanlou SG, Shahabi S, Shahrokhi S, Shaker E, Shamsi M, Shannawaz M, Sharma S, Shaygan M, Sheikhi RA, Shetty JK, Shiri R, Shivalli S, Shobeiri P, Sibhat MM, Singh A, Singh JA, Slater H, Solmi M, Somayaji R, Tan K-K, Thapar R, Tohidast SA, Valadan Tahbaz S, Valizadeh R, Vasankari TJ, Venketasubramanian N, Vlassov V, Vo B, Wang Y-P, Wiangkham T, Yadav L, Yadollahpour A, Yahyazadeh Jabbari SH, Yang L, Yazdanpanah F, Yonemoto N, Younis MZ, Zare I, Zarrintan A, Zoladl M, Vos T, March LM. Global, regional, and national burden of low back pain, its attributable risk factors, and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet Rheumatol 2023;5:e316–e329.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00098-X&link_type=DOI) 

19. [19].Furlong B, Etchegary H, Aubrey-Bassler K, Swab M, Pike A, Hall A. Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2022;17:e0274527.
    
    

20. [20].Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, Chant A. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expectations 2019;22:785–801.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/hex.12888&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31012259&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

21. [21].Gupta P, Gupta M, Koul N. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment; how to deal with too much medicine. J Family Med Prim Care 2020;9:3815.
    
    

22. [22].Halcomb EJ, Davidson PM. Is verbatim transcription of interview data always necessary? Appl Nurs Res 2006;19:38–42.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.apnr.2005.06.001&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16455440&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000235750100007&link_type=ISI) 

23. [23].Hall AM, Aubrey-Bassler K, Thorne B, Maher CG. Do not routinely offer imaging for uncomplicated low back pain. BMJ 2021:n291.
    
    

24. [24].Harris IA, Traeger A, Stanford R, Maher CG, Buchbinder R. Lumbar spine fusion: what is the evidence? Intern Med J 2018;48:1430–1434.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/imj.14120&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30517997&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

25. [25].Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, McLeod L, Delacqua G, Delacqua F, Kirby J, Duda SN, REDCap Consortium. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 2019;95:103208.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31078660&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

26. [26].Hassan S, Nesovic K, Babineau J, Furlan AD, Kumbhare D, Carlesso LC. Identifying chronic low back pain phenotypic domains and characteristics accounting for individual variation: a systematic review. Pain 2023;164:2148–2190.
    
    

27. [27].Hodges PW, Setchell J, Daniel E, Fowler M, Lee AS, Popovich Jr. JM, Cholewicki J. How Individuals With Low Back Pain Conceptualize Their Condition: A Collaborative Modeling Approach. J Pain 2022;23:1060–1070. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2021.12.014.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpain.2021.12.014&link_type=DOI) 

28. [28].Jarvik JG, Gold LS, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, Rundell SD, Turner JA, Avins AL, Bauer Z, Bresnahan BW, Friedly JL, James K, Kessler L, Nedeljkovic SS, Nerenz DR, Shi X, Sullivan SD, Chan L, Schwalb JM, Deyo RA. Association of early imaging for back pain with clinical outcomes in older adults. JAMA 2015;313:1143–53.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2015.1871&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25781443&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

29. [29].Jaspers MWM, Steen T, Bos C van den, Geenen M. The think aloud method: a guide to user interface design. Int J Med Inform 2004;73:781–795.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.08.003&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15491929&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000225117600005&link_type=ISI) 

30. [30].Jenkins HJ, Downie AS, Maher CG, Moloney NA, Magnussen JS, Hancock MJ. Imaging for low back pain: is clinical use consistent with guidelines? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 2018;18:2266–2277.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29730460&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

31. [31].Jenkins HJ, Moloney NA, French SD, Maher CG, Dear BF, Magnussen JS, Hancock MJ. Using behaviour change theory and preliminary testing to develop an implementation intervention to reduce imaging for low back pain. BMC Health Serv Res 2018;18:734.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12913-018-3526-7&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

32. [32].Kakemam E, Arab-Zozani M, Raeissi P, Albelbeisi AH. The occurrence, types, reasons, and mitigation strategies of defensive medicine among physicians: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 2022;22:800.
    
    

33. [33].Kallio H, Pietilä A-M, Johnson M, Kangasniemi M. Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. J Adv Nurs 2016;72:2954–2965.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/jan.13031&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

34. [34].Karran EL, Grant AR, Lee H, Kamper SJ, Williams CM, Wiles LK, Shala R, Poddar C V., Astill T, Moseley GL. Do health education initiatives assist socioeconomically disadvantaged populations? A systematic review and meta-analyses. BMC Public Health 2023;23:453.
    
    

35. [35].Karran EL, Grant AR, Moseley GL. Low back pain and the social determinants of health: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Pain 2020;161.
    
    

36. [36].Kazi MAF, Spurling LJ. Realist evaluation for evidence-based practice. European Evaluation Society 4th Annual Conference. Citeseer, 2000.
    
    

37. [37].Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 3. edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2015.
    
    

38. [38].Leake HB, Moseley GL, Stanton TR, O’Hagan ET, Heathcote LC. What do patients value learning about pain? A mixed-methods survey on the relevance of target concepts after pain science education. Pain 2021;162:2558–2568.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

39. [39].Lemmers GPG, van Lankveld W, Westert GP, van der Wees PJ, Staal JB. Imaging versus no imaging for low back pain: a systematic review, measuring costs, healthcare utilization and absence from work. Eur Spine J 2019;28:937–950.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00586-019-05918-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30796513&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

40. [40].Levinson W, Kallewaard M, Bhatia RS, Wolfson D, Shortt S, Kerr EA. ‘Choosing Wisely’: a growing international campaign. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24:167–174.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoicWhjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjI0LzIvMTY3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDcvMDUvMjAyNC4wNy4wMi4yNDMwOTY5My5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

41. [41].Lim YZ, Chou L, Au RT, Seneviwickrama KMD, Cicuttini FM, Briggs AM, Sullivan K, Urquhart DM, Wluka AE. People with low back pain want clear, consistent and personalised information on prognosis, treatment options and self-management strategies: a systematic review. J Physiother 2019;65:124–135.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jphys.2019.05.010&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

42. [42].Lin I, Wiles L, Waller R, Goucke R, Nagree Y, Gibberd M, Straker L, Maher CG, O’Sullivan PPB. What does best practice care for musculoskeletal pain look like? Eleven consistent recommendations from high-quality clinical practice guidelines: systematic review. Br J Sports Med 2020;54:79.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiYmpzcG9ydHMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6NzoiNTQvMi83OSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA3LzA1LzIwMjQuMDcuMDIuMjQzMDk2OTMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

43. [43].Lyng KD, Djurtoft C, Bruun MK, Christensen MN, Lauritsen RE, Larsen JB, Birnie KA, Stinson J, Hoegh MS, Palsson TS, Olesen AE, Arendt-Nielsen L, Ehlers LH, Fonager K, Jensen MB, Würtzen H, Poulin PA, Handberg G, Ziegler C, Moeller LB, Olsen J, Heise L, Rathleff MS. What is known and what is still unknown within chronic musculoskeletal pain? A systematic evidence and gap map. Pain 2023.
    
    

44. [44].Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qual Health Res 2015;26:1753–1760.
    
    

45. [45].McGill B, Corbett L, Grunseit AC, Irving M, O’Hara BJ. Co-Produce, Co-Design, Co-Create, or Co-Construct—Who Does It and How Is It Done in Chronic Disease Prevention? A Scoping Review. Healthcare 2022;10:647.
    
    

46. [46].Ng W, Slater H, Starcevich C, Wright A, Mitchell T, Beales D. Barriers and enablers influencing healthcare professionals’ adoption of a biopsychosocial approach to musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. Pain 2021;162:2154–2185.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

47. [47].Nicholas M, Vlaeyen JWS, Rief W, Barke A, Aziz Q, Benoliel R, Cohen M, Evers S, Giamberardino MA, Goebel A, Korwisi B, Perrot S, Svensson P, Wang S-J, Treede R-D, IASP Taskforce for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic primary pain. Pain 2019;160:28–37.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001390&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30586068&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

48. [48].Nury E, Schmucker C, Nagavci B, Motschall E, Nitschke K, Schulte E, Wegwarth O, Meerpohl JJ. Efficacy and safety of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain and chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Pain 2022;163:610–636.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002423&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34326292&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

49. [49].O’Hagan ET, Di Pietro F, Traeger AC, Cashin AG, Hodges PW, Wand BM, O’Neill S, Schabrun SM, Harris IA, McAuley JH. What messages predict intention to self-manage low back pain? A study of attitudes towards patient education. Pain 2022;163:1489–1496.
    
    

50. [50].O’Hagan ET, Traeger AC, Bunzli S, Leake HB, Schabrun SM, Wand BM, O’Neill S, Harris IA, McAuley JH. What do people post on social media relative to low back pain? A content analysis of Australian data. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2021;54:102402.
    
    

51. [51].O’Sullivan JW, Albasri A, Nicholson BD, Perera R, Aronson JK, Roberts N, Heneghan C. Overtesting and undertesting in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2018;8:e018557.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiOC8yL2UwMTg1NTciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wNS8yMDI0LjA3LjAyLjI0MzA5NjkzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

52. [52].Rozbroj T, Haas R, O’Connor D, Carter SM, McCaffery K, Thomas R, Donovan J, Buchbinder R. How do people understand overtesting and overdiagnosis? Systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Soc Sci Med 2021;285:114255.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

53. [53].Sajid IM, Parkunan A, Frost K. Unintended consequences: quantifying the benefits, iatrogenic harms and downstream cascade costs of musculoskeletal MRI in UK primary care. BMJ Open Qual 2021;10.
    
    

54. [54].Schubbe D, Scalia P, Yen RW, Saunders CH, Cohen S, Elwyn G, van den Muijsenbergh M, Durand M-A. Using pictures to convey health information: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects on patient and consumer health behaviors and outcomes. Patient Educ Couns 2020;103:1935–1960.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

55. [55].Sharma S, Traeger AC, Reed B, Hamilton M, O’Connor DA, Hoffmann TC, Bonner C, Buchbinder R, Maher CG. Clinician and patient beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain: a systematic qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Open 2020;10:e037820.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTAvOC9lMDM3ODIwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDcvMDUvMjAyNC4wNy4wMi4yNDMwOTY5My5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

56. [56].Sharma S, Traeger AC, Tcharkhedian E, Harrison J, Hersch JK, Pickles K, Harris IA, Maher CG. “I would not go to him”: Focus groups exploring community responses to a public health campaign aimed at reducing unnecessary diagnostic imaging of low back pain. Health Expect 2021;24:648–658.
    
    

57. [57].Slattery P, Saeri AK, Bragge P. Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst 2020;18:17.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32046728&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.02.24309693.atom) 

58. [58].Smith F, Wallengren C, Öhlén J. Participatory design in education materials in a health care context. Action Research 2017;15:310–336.
    
    

59. [59].Stacey D, Lewis KB, Smith M, Carley M, Volk R, Douglas EE, Pacheco-Brousseau L, Finderup J, Gunderson J, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Bravo P, Steffensen K, Gogovor A, Graham ID, Kelly SE, Légaré F, Sondergaard H, Thomson R, Trenaman L, Trevena L. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024;1:CD001431.
    
    

60. [60].Svendsen MJ, Wood KW, Kyle J, Cooper K, Rasmussen CDN, Sandal LF, Stochkendahl MJ, Mair FS, Nicholl BI. Barriers and facilitators to patient uptake and utilisation of digital interventions for the self-management of low back pain: a systematic review of qualitative studies. BMJ Open 2020;10:e038800.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMzoiMTAvMTIvZTAzODgwMCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA3LzA1LzIwMjQuMDcuMDIuMjQzMDk2OTMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

61. [61].Toye F, Belton J, Hannink E, Seers K, Barker K. A Healing Journey with Chronic Pain: A Meta-Ethnography Synthesizing 195 Qualitative Studies. Pain Medicine 2021;22:1333–1344.
    
    

62. [62].WHO guideline for non-surgical management of chronic primary low back pain in adults in primary and community care settings. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. 978th-92nd-4th-008178–9th ed. © World Health Organization 2023, 2023.