Oral Presentation 51st International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine Annual Meeting 2025

INTRODUCTION

Effective collaboration between clinicians and researchers is vital for advancing research and improving patient outcomes. However, differing perspectives and priorities can hinder interdisciplinary cooperation (1,2). This study explores the perspectives, interests, and collaborative experiences of clinicians and researchers in the field of spine health, focusing on members of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine (ISSLS). The primary goal is to identify key areas for improving collaboration, which can ultimately enhance both research outcomes and patient care.

METHODS

A two-phase survey was conducted between August and October 2024. A pilot test was performed with a group of spine clinicians and researchers to refine the survey instrument. Feedback on question clarity and usability was used to improve the final survey. The second phase involved distributing the Google Forms online survey to ISSLS members. The survey consisted of six sections: 1. Demographic information; 2. Interests and perspectives on spine research; 3. Perceptions and expectations of collaboration; 4. Perceptions of the understanding of research and clinical work; 5. Qualitative assessment; 6. Final feedback. Chi-square tests were used to assess answer distribution differences between clinicians and researchers. Mann-Whitney U tests compared session interest levels between groups, and a modified Content Validity Ratio (CVR) was used to quantify consensus on high-interest topics. 

RESULTS

The survey was sent to 382 ISSLS members, with 80 responses (20.9%; 55% clinicians, 45% researchers). Notably, the topic "Low Back Pain" received high CVR both for researchers (1.00) and clinicians (0.86), indicating strong consensus on its relevance. Clinicians favored applied clinical topics like "Surgical Outcomes" (p=0.008) and "Fusion" (p<0.001), while researchers showed greater interest in basic science topics, including "Cell, Signalling, Mechanotransduction" (p=0.018). Clinicians overestimated researchers' interest in "Minimally invasive and robotic surgery" (44.4% perceived vs. 2.8% actual) and underestimated interest in "Chronic pain and psychosocial factors" (15.6% perceived vs. 41.7% actual)(χ²=25.95, p=0.0002). The main barriers to collaboration included "lack of time" (86.1% researchers, 62.2% clinicians) and "differing professional focuses" (47.2% researchers, 35.6% clinicians). Benefits noted by clinicians included enhanced study design (60%) and knowledge exchange (57.8%), while researchers emphasized access to real-world data (61.1%)(χ²=33.39, p=0.0025). Researchers suggest engaging clinicians in research seminars and conferences (75%) and creating collaborative research projects (72.2%) to improve their understanding of research. Clinicians similarly prioritized joint research project development (68.9%) and interdisciplinary meetings (60%) to enhance researchers' clinical understanding, emphasizing the importance of clearer communication of clinical challenges (53.3%).

DISCUSSION

The survey of this subgroup of ISSLS members reveals differing priorities between clinicians and researchers, with clinicians favoring applied topics and practical benefits and researchers focusing on basic science but, surprisingly, not on technological advancements. Mutual misunderstandings of each group’s interests suggest a need for better alignment. Both sides agree on the importance of working together when developing research ideas. Interdisciplinary meetings and clearer communication could help bridge the gaps and improve collaboration. Importantly, these findings reflect the perspectives of a subgroup of ISSLS members and may not fully represent the society or, indeed, the broader spine health community.