Literature DB >> 25672805

Transcultural adaption and psychometric properties of the STarT Back Screening Tool among Finnish low back pain patients.

Susanna Piironen1, Markus Paananen1, Marianne Haapea2,3, Markku Hupli4, Paavo Zitting5, Katja Ryynänen1,6, Esa-Pekka Takala7, Katariina Korniloff8, Jonathan C Hill9, Arja Häkkinen8,10, Jaro Karppinen11,12,13.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) is a 9-item questionnaire designed for screening low back pain (LBP) patients into three prognostic groups for stratified care. The stratified care approach has proven to be clinically more beneficial and cost-effective than the current best physiotherapy practice. The objective of this study was to translate, culturally adapt and study psychometric properties of the SBST among Finnish LBP patients.
METHODS: The SBST was translated into Finnish using appropriate translation guidelines. A total of 116 patients were recruited from outpatient clinics. They were asked to fill out two questionnaires within 1-7 days. The first questionnaire set included the SBST, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) and intensities of back and leg pain (10-cm Visual Analogue Scale). The second questionnaire form included the SBST and a question about persistence of symptoms.
RESULTS: Some linguistic and cultural differences emerged during the translation process with item 1 ("spread down my legs"), item 2 ("neck and shoulder pain"), item 6 ("worrying thoughts") and item 9 ("bothersome"). The test-retest reliability of the SBST total score was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.78) and of the psychosocial subscale good (0.68). Cronbach's alpha for the psychosocial subscale was 0.55. Spearman's correlation coefficient between SBST total score and BDI was 0.38, ODI 0.39, ÖMPSQ 0.45, intensity of leg pain 0.45 and LBP 0.31. Based on analysis of variance, the SBST discriminated low- and medium-risk groups better than medium- and high-risk groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The Finnish translation of the SBST is linguistically accurate and has been adapted to the Finnish-speaking population. It showed to be a valid and reliable instrument and comparable with the original English version. Therefore, it may be used in clinical work with Finnish LBP patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Low back pain; STarT Back Screening Tool; Translation; Validation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25672805     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-3804-6

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


  27 in total

Review 1.  Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research.

Authors:  E M Andresen
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.966

Review 2.  Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures.

Authors:  D E Beaton; C Bombardier; F Guillemin; M B Ferraz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  The Oswestry Disability Index.

Authors:  J C Fairbank; P B Pynsent
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  An inventory for measuring depression.

Authors:  A T BECK; C H WARD; M MENDELSON; J MOCK; J ERBAUGH
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  1961-06

5.  Rating scales, scales of measurement, issues of reliability: resolving some critical issues for clinicians and researchers.

Authors:  Domenic Cicchetti; Richard Bronen; Susan Spencer; Sheryl Haut; Anne Berg; Patricia Oliver; Peter Tyrer
Journal:  J Nerv Ment Dis       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.254

6.  Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.

Authors:  Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-08-24       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 7.  Subgrouping patients with low back pain in primary care: are we getting any better at it?

Authors:  Nadine E Foster; Jonathan C Hill; Elaine M Hay
Journal:  Man Ther       Date:  2010-06-30

8.  Reliability and validity study of the Finnish version 2.0 of the oswestry disability index.

Authors:  Liisa Pekkanen; Hannu Kautiainen; Jari Ylinen; Petri Salo; Arja Häkkinen
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Can gender differences in the prevalence of mental disorders be explained by sociodemographic factors?

Authors:  M Klose; F Jacobi
Journal:  Arch Womens Ment Health       Date:  2004-03-22       Impact factor: 3.633

10.  A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment.

Authors:  Jonathan C Hill; Kate M Dunn; Martyn Lewis; Ricky Mullis; Chris J Main; Nadine E Foster; Elaine M Hay
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2008-05-15
View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews.

Authors:  Scott D Tagliaferri; Maia Angelova; Xiaohui Zhao; Patrick J Owen; Clint T Miller; Tim Wilkin; Daniel L Belavy
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2020-07-09

Review 2.  Advancing practice for back pain through stratified care (STarT Back).

Authors:  Gail Sowden; Jonathan Charles Hill; Lars Morso; Quninette Louw; Nadine Elizabeth Foster
Journal:  Braz J Phys Ther       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Comparison of the Swedish STarT Back Screening Tool and the Short Form of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire in patients with acute or subacute back and neck pain.

Authors:  Malin Forsbrand; Birgitta Grahn; Jonathan C Hill; Ingemar F Petersson; Charlotte Post Sennehed; Kjerstin Stigmar
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 2.362

4.  Risk classification of patients referred to secondary care for low back pain.

Authors:  Monica Unsgaard-Tøndel; Ingunn Gunnes Kregnes; Tom I L Nilsen; Gunn Hege Marchand; Torunn Askim
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 5.  Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews.

Authors:  Scott D Tagliaferri; Maia Angelova; Xiaohui Zhao; Patrick J Owen; Clint T Miller; Tim Wilkin; Daniel L Belavy
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2020-07-09

6.  A classification-based approach to low back pain in primary care - protocol for a benchmarking controlled trial.

Authors:  A S Simula; A Malmivaara; N Booth; J Karppinen
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 2.497

7.  Effectiveness of training in guideline-oriented biopsychosocial management of low-back pain in occupational health services - a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Katja Ryynänen; Petteri Oura; Anna-Sofia Simula; Riikka Holopainen; Maija Paukkunen; Mikko Lausmaa; Jouko Remes; Neill Booth; Antti Malmivaara; Jaro Karppinen
Journal:  Scand J Work Environ Health       Date:  2021-04-13       Impact factor: 5.024

Review 8.  Clinical Decision Support Tools for Selecting Interventions for Patients with Disabling Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Douglas P Gross; Susan Armijo-Olivo; William S Shaw; Kelly Williams-Whitt; Nicola T Shaw; Jan Hartvigsen; Ziling Qin; Christine Ha; Linda J Woodhouse; Ivan A Steenstra
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2016-09

9.  Effect of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation integration pattern and swiss ball training on pain and balance in elderly patients with chronic back pain.

Authors:  Kim Jin Young; Choi Won Je; Seo Tae Hwa
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2015-10-30

10.  Reliability and screening ability of the StarT Back screening tool in patients with low back pain in physiotherapy practice, a cohort study.

Authors:  Hilde Stendal Robinson; Hanne Dagfinrud
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.