Literature DB >> 19851791

Self-reported assessment of disability and performance-based assessment of disability are influenced by different patient characteristics in acute low back pain.

Benedict Martin Wand1, Lara A Chiffelle, Neil Edward O'Connell, James Henry McAuley, Lorraine Hilary Desouza.   

Abstract

For an individual, the functional consequences of an episode of low back pain is a key measure of their clinical status. Self-reported disability measures are commonly used to capture this component of the back pain experience. In non-acute low back pain there is some uncertainty of the validity of this approach. It appears that self-reported assessment of disability and direct measurements of functional status are only moderately related. In this cross-sectional study, we investigated this relationship in a sample of 94 acute low back pain patients. Both self-reported disability and a performance-based assessment of disability were assessed, along with extensive profiling of patient characteristics. Scale consistency of the performance-based assessment was investigated using Cronbach's alpha, the relationship between self-reported and performance-based assessment of disability was investigated using Pearson's correlation. The relationship between clinical profile and each of the disability measures were examined using Pearson's correlations and multivariate linear regression. Our results demonstrate that the battery of tests used are internally reliable (Cronbach's alpha = 0.86). We found only moderate correlations between the two disability measures (r = 0.471, p < 0.001). Self-reported disability was significantly correlated with symptom distribution, medication use, physical well-being, pain intensity, depression, somatic distress and anxiety. The only significant correlations with the performance-based measure were symptom distribution, physical well-being and pain intensity. In the multivariate analyses no psychological measure made a significant unique contribution to the prediction of the performance-based measure, whereas depression made a unique contribution to the prediction of the self-reported measure. Our results suggest that self-reported and performance-based assessments of disability are influenced by different patient characteristics. In particular, it appears self-reported measures of disability are more influenced by the patient's psychological status than performance-based measures of disability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19851791      PMCID: PMC2899836          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1180-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  35 in total

Review 1.  Fear avoidance and prognosis in back pain: a systematic review and synthesis of current evidence.

Authors:  Tamar Pincus; Steven Vogel; A Kim Burton; Rita Santos; Andy P Field
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2006-12

2.  Self-reports and clinician-measured physical function among patients with low back pain: a comparison.

Authors:  C E Lee; M J Simmonds; D M Novy; S Jones
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.966

3.  Reliability and responsiveness of the shuttle walking test in patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  S Taylor; H Frost; A Taylor; K Barker
Journal:  Physiother Res Int       Date:  2001

4.  Early intervention for the management of acute low back pain: a single-blind randomized controlled trial of biopsychosocial education, manual therapy, and exercise.

Authors:  Benedict M Wand; Christien Bird; James H McAuley; Caroline J Doré; Maureen MacDowell; Lorraine H De Souza
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Physical activity in daily life in patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  J A Verbunt; K R Westerterp; G J van der Heijden; H A Seelen; J W Vlaeyen; J A Knottnerus
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.966

6.  Criticisms of the biopsychosocial model in spine care: creating and then attacking a straw person.

Authors:  Robert J Gatchel; Dennis C Turk
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Psychometric characteristics and clinical usefulness of physical performance tests in patients with low back pain.

Authors:  M J Simmonds; S L Olson; S Jones; T Hussein; C E Lee; D Novy; H Radwan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Construct validity of a kinesiophysical functional capacity evaluation administered within a worker's compensation environment.

Authors:  Douglas P Gross; Michele C Battié
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2003-12

9.  Rasch analysis of the Roland disability questionnaire.

Authors:  Andrew M Garratt
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  The Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (MSPQ).

Authors:  C J Main
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 3.006

View more
  19 in total

1.  How well do observed functional limitations explain the variance in Roland Morris scores in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain undergoing physiotherapy?

Authors:  F Caporaso; N Pulkovski; H Sprott; A F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Manual wheelchair skills: objective testing versus subjective questionnaire.

Authors:  Paula W Rushton; R Lee Kirby; William C Miller
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 3.966

3.  Level of Evidence for Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of Physical Capacity Tasks Designed to Assess Functioning in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review Using the COSMIN Standards.

Authors:  Max Jakobsson; Annelie Gutke; Lidwine B Mokkink; Rob Smeets; Mari Lundberg
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2019-04-01

Review 4.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2009.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  [Epionics SPINE-use of an objective method to examine spinal mobility in patients with axial spondyloarthritis].

Authors:  D Kiefer; X Baraliakos; B Bühring; U Kiltz; J Braun
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.372

6.  Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) to French: A Valid and Reliable Instrument to Assess Work Functioning.

Authors:  Monika E Finger; Virginie Wicki-Roten; Bertrand Leger; Reuben Escorpizo
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2019-06

Review 7.  The phenotypic and genetic signatures of common musculoskeletal pain conditions.

Authors:  Luda Diatchenko; Roger B Fillingim; Shad B Smith; William Maixner
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2013-04-02       Impact factor: 20.543

8.  Resistive straight leg raise test, resistive forward bend test and heel compression test: novel techniques in identifying secondary gain motives in low back pain cases.

Authors:  Naresh Kumar; Sujith Indeewara Wijerathne; Wen Wei Julian Lim; Tan Wei Loong Barry; Chinmay Nath; Shen Liang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-04-29       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Predictors of Post-Treatment Employment for Individuals with Substance Use Disorders.

Authors:  Min Kim; Stephen Leierer; JiHye Jeon
Journal:  Community Ment Health J       Date:  2019-07-02

10.  Predictive ability of a modified Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire in an acute/subacute low back pain working population.

Authors:  Charles Philip Gabel; Markus Melloh; Michael Yelland; Brendan Burkett; Anne Roiko
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.