R Hilfiker1, I A Knutti2, B Raval-Roland2, G Rivier3, G Crombez4, Emmanuelle Opsommer5. 1. School of Health Sciences, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO) Valais-Wallis, Chemin de l'Agasse 5, 1950, Sion, Switzerland. 2. University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO), School of Health Sciences (HESAV), Av. de Beaumont 21, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. Clinique Romande de Réadaptation, Av. du Grand-Champsec 90, 1950, Sion, Switzerland. 4. Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. 5. University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO), School of Health Sciences (HESAV), Av. de Beaumont 21, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. emmanuelle.opsommer@hesav.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The assessment of a broad range of biopsychosocial aspects is important in the rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) for the prediction of outcome as well as for evaluation. The objective of this study was to test the responsiveness, construct validity and predictive value of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ) compared to other instruments widely used to assess biopsychosocial aspects in patients with CLBP. METHODS: 111 patients with CLBP admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation completed a set of questionnaires on biopsychosocial aspects at baseline and at discharge. Ninety-eight patients responded at three months for an assessment of the return to work status. Responsiveness of the OMPSQ, the ability to detect change in the construct of interest, was investigated by a set of hypotheses on correlations with widely used questionnaires. We tested the hypothesis that the changes in the OMPSQ would vary along with the responses in the Patient's Global Impression of Change. Prediction of disability at discharge, work status at three months and time to return to work was evaluated with linear, logistic and cox regression models. RESULTS: The OMPSQ showed good predictive values for disability and return to work and construct validity of the instrument was corroborated. Seventy-nine percent of our hypotheses for responsiveness could be confirmed, with the OMPSQ showing the second highest change during the rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: The OMPSQ can also be applied in patients with CLBP, but for the assessment of change in psychosocial variables one should add specific questionnaires.
PURPOSE: The assessment of a broad range of biopsychosocial aspects is important in the rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) for the prediction of outcome as well as for evaluation. The objective of this study was to test the responsiveness, construct validity and predictive value of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ) compared to other instruments widely used to assess biopsychosocial aspects in patients with CLBP. METHODS: 111 patients with CLBP admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation completed a set of questionnaires on biopsychosocial aspects at baseline and at discharge. Ninety-eight patients responded at three months for an assessment of the return to work status. Responsiveness of the OMPSQ, the ability to detect change in the construct of interest, was investigated by a set of hypotheses on correlations with widely used questionnaires. We tested the hypothesis that the changes in the OMPSQ would vary along with the responses in the Patient's Global Impression of Change. Prediction of disability at discharge, work status at three months and time to return to work was evaluated with linear, logistic and cox regression models. RESULTS: The OMPSQ showed good predictive values for disability and return to work and construct validity of the instrument was corroborated. Seventy-nine percent of our hypotheses for responsiveness could be confirmed, with the OMPSQ showing the second highest change during the rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: The OMPSQ can also be applied in patients with CLBP, but for the assessment of change in psychosocial variables one should add specific questionnaires.
Entities:
Keywords:
Low back pain, prognosis; Psychometrics; Questionnaires; Rehabilitation
Authors: Karl Chaory; Fouad Fayad; François Rannou; Marie-Martine Lefèvre-Colau; Jacques Fermanian; Michel Revel; Serge Poiraudeau Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2004-04-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Dennis C Turk; Robert H Dworkin; Robert R Allen; Nicholas Bellamy; Nancy Brandenburg; Daniel B Carr; Charles Cleeland; Raymond Dionne; John T Farrar; Bradley S Galer; David J Hewitt; Alejandro R Jadad; Nathaniel P Katz; Lynn D Kramer; Donald C Manning; Cynthia G McCormick; Michael P McDermott; Patrick McGrath; Steve Quessy; Bob A Rappaport; James P Robinson; Mike A Royal; Lee Simon; Joseph W Stauffer; Wendy Stein; Jane Tollett; James Witter Journal: Pain Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Rahim Lalji; Léonie Hofstetter; Alice Kongsted; Viktor von Wyl; Milo A Puhan; Cesar A Hincapié Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 3.006