N R A Jegan1, A Viniol, A Becker, J Barth, C Leonhardt. 1. Abteilung für Allgemeinmedizin und Familienmedizin, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Karl-von-Frisch-Straße 4, 35043, Marburg, Deutschland, jegan@staff.uni-marburg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The coping resources questionnaire for back pain (FBR) uses 12 items to measure the perceived helpfulness of different coping resources (CRs, social emotional support, practical help, knowledge, movement and relaxation, leisure and pleasure, spirituality and cognitive strategies). The aim of the study was to evaluate the instrument in a clinical patient sample assessed in a primary care setting. SAMPLE AND METHODS: The study was a secondary evaluation of empirical data from a large cohort study in general practices. The 58 participating primary care practices recruited patients who reported chronic back pain in the consultation. Besides the FBR and a pain sketch, the patients completed scales measuring depression, anxiety, resilience, sociodemographic factors and pain characteristics. To allow computing of retested parameters the FBR was sent to some of the original participants again after 6 months (90% response rate). We calculated consistency and retest reliability coefficients as well as correlations between the FBR subscales and depression, anxiety and resilience scores to account for validity. By means of a cluster analysis groups with different resource profiles were formed. Results. RESULTS: For the study 609 complete FBR baseline data sets could be used for statistical analysis. The internal consistency scores ranged fromα=0.58 to α=0.78 and retest reliability scores were between rTT=0.41 and rTT=0.63. Correlation with depression, fear and resilience ranged from r=-0.38 to r=0.42. The cluster analysis resulted in four groups with relatively homogenous intragroup profiles (high CRs, low spirituality, medium CRs, low CRs). The four groups differed significantly in fear and depression (the more inefficient the resources the higher the difference) as well as in resilience (the more inefficient the lower the difference). The group with low CRs also reported permanent pain with no relief. The groups did not otherwise differ. CONCLUSIONS: The FBR is an economic instrument that is suitable for practical use e.g. in primary care practices to identify strengths and deficits in the CRs of chronic pain patients that can then be specified in face to face consultation. However, due to the rather low reliability, the use of subscales for profile differentiation and follow-up measurement in individual diagnoses is limited.
BACKGROUND: The coping resources questionnaire for back pain (FBR) uses 12 items to measure the perceived helpfulness of different coping resources (CRs, social emotional support, practical help, knowledge, movement and relaxation, leisure and pleasure, spirituality and cognitive strategies). The aim of the study was to evaluate the instrument in a clinical patient sample assessed in a primary care setting. SAMPLE AND METHODS: The study was a secondary evaluation of empirical data from a large cohort study in general practices. The 58 participating primary care practices recruited patients who reported chronic back pain in the consultation. Besides the FBR and a pain sketch, the patients completed scales measuring depression, anxiety, resilience, sociodemographic factors and pain characteristics. To allow computing of retested parameters the FBR was sent to some of the original participants again after 6 months (90% response rate). We calculated consistency and retest reliability coefficients as well as correlations between the FBR subscales and depression, anxiety and resilience scores to account for validity. By means of a cluster analysis groups with different resource profiles were formed. Results. RESULTS: For the study 609 complete FBR baseline data sets could be used for statistical analysis. The internal consistency scores ranged fromα=0.58 to α=0.78 and retest reliability scores were between rTT=0.41 and rTT=0.63. Correlation with depression, fear and resilience ranged from r=-0.38 to r=0.42. The cluster analysis resulted in four groups with relatively homogenous intragroup profiles (high CRs, low spirituality, medium CRs, low CRs). The four groups differed significantly in fear and depression (the more inefficient the resources the higher the difference) as well as in resilience (the more inefficient the lower the difference). The group with low CRs also reported permanent pain with no relief. The groups did not otherwise differ. CONCLUSIONS: The FBR is an economic instrument that is suitable for practical use e.g. in primary care practices to identify strengths and deficits in the CRs of chronic painpatients that can then be specified in face to face consultation. However, due to the rather low reliability, the use of subscales for profile differentiation and follow-up measurement in individual diagnoses is limited.
Authors: L Klenerman; P D Slade; I M Stanley; B Pennie; J P Reilly; L E Atchison; J D Troup; M J Rose Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 1995-02-15 Impact factor: 3.468