title: Key factors in back disability prevention: what influences the choice of priorities?
abstract: METHODS
  Survey, subgroup analysis, Q-analysis, and analysis of e-mail exchanges.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess what influences the choice of priorities for interventions to prevent back-related disability.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Back-related disability results from interaction of physical, psychological, occupational, and social factors. However, opinions differ on which factors should be targeted by interventions aimed at preventing disability.
  
  
  METHODS
  A Delphi panel (14 researchers and 19 occupational health stakeholders) attempted to reach consensus about the relative impact and modifiability of 32 factors involved in back-related disability. Data gathered during the panel were analyzed using 4 methods: (1) a survey asking panel members what influenced their rankings, (2) subgroup analysis to compare differences in rankings according to members' backgrounds and affiliations, (3) Q-analysis to identify views shared by members, and (4) qualitative analysis of e-mail exchanges during the panel process.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Besides research evidence about a factor, we found that the greatest influence was the personal experience of panel members, which included diverse views about the nature of back disability, expectations about how interventions would be implemented, the typical workers or patients seen by them, and their values and principles. The member's educational background and current affiliation played a lesser role in their choice of priorities. The choice of priorities was also influenced by difficulties in separating the impact of a factor from its modifiability, whether the panel member considered occupational or nonoccupational disability, and the intricate linkages between the factors.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study suggests the choice of priorities is primarily influenced by different views about disability and other components of personal experience. Secondary influences included process difficulties in making a choice. The person's background and affiliation had a weak association with the views and choice of priorities.
authors: Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, ON, Canada. Jaime@ohsah.bc.ca
authors: Jaime
authors: J
authors: Guzman
authors: Debbie
authors: D
authors: Jones
authors: J David
authors: JD
authors: Cassidy
authors: Andrea D
authors: AD
authors: Furlan
authors: Patrick
authors: P
authors: Loisel
authors: John W
authors: JW
authors: Frank
mesh_terms: D019567:Back Injuries / Q000517:prevention & control*; D003657:Decision Making; D003697:Delphi Technique; D004185:Disability Evaluation; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006292:Health Priorities; D006306:Health Surveys; D006801:Humans; D011315:Preventive Medicine / Q000379:methods*; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires