Jahan Heidari1, Tobias Mierswa1, Monika Hasenbring2, Jens Kleinert3, Claudia Levenig2, Johanna Belz3, Michael Kellmann1,4. 1. Unit of Sport Psychology, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany. 2. Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany. 3. Department of Health & Social Psychology, German Sport University, Cologne, Germany. 4. School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recovery describes a restoring process influencing the health conditions of individuals but a potential link to low back pain (LBP) has not been scrutinized so far. Psychological strategies to deal with LBP have been considered within the biopsychosocial approach but substantial evidence regarding specific psychological underpinnings remains elusive. The current study aimed to compare individuals with different recovery-stress patterns (i.e. specific combinations of recovery/stress) regarding their pain and disability in the lower back. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from 265 physically active individuals with non-specific LBP were collected via standardized questionnaires. The participants engaged in prescribed exercise therapy provided by a healthcare professional owing to their back burden. A k-means cluster analysis identified three clusters. RESULTS: Cluster 1 entailed individuals with high recovery and low stress values, Cluster 2 represented participants with medium scores on both dimensions and Cluster 3 included participants with low recovery and high stress values. The statistical analyses for pain intensity using analyses of covariance indicated significantly higher values for Cluster 3 compared with Clusters 1 and 2 for worst pain intensity (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively) and mean pain intensity (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). The disability comparisons using non-parametric tests showed significantly higher LBP-related disability in Cluster 3 than Cluster 1 on two disability measures. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate an association between detrimental recovery-stress patterns and LBP. Examining the role of recovery has innovative practical relevance for LBP prevention and rehabilitation through the implementation of approaches to enhance recovery in relevant programmes.
BACKGROUND: Recovery describes a restoring process influencing the health conditions of individuals but a potential link to low back pain (LBP) has not been scrutinized so far. Psychological strategies to deal with LBP have been considered within the biopsychosocial approach but substantial evidence regarding specific psychological underpinnings remains elusive. The current study aimed to compare individuals with different recovery-stress patterns (i.e. specific combinations of recovery/stress) regarding their pain and disability in the lower back. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from 265 physically active individuals with non-specific LBP were collected via standardized questionnaires. The participants engaged in prescribed exercise therapy provided by a healthcare professional owing to their back burden. A k-means cluster analysis identified three clusters. RESULTS: Cluster 1 entailed individuals with high recovery and low stress values, Cluster 2 represented participants with medium scores on both dimensions and Cluster 3 included participants with low recovery and high stress values. The statistical analyses for pain intensity using analyses of covariance indicated significantly higher values for Cluster 3 compared with Clusters 1 and 2 for worst pain intensity (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively) and mean pain intensity (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). The disability comparisons using non-parametric tests showed significantly higher LBP-related disability in Cluster 3 than Cluster 1 on two disability measures. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate an association between detrimental recovery-stress patterns and LBP. Examining the role of recovery has innovative practical relevance for LBP prevention and rehabilitation through the implementation of approaches to enhance recovery in relevant programmes.
Authors: M I Hasenbring; C Levenig; D Hallner; A-K Puschmann; A Weiffen; J Kleinert; J Belz; M Schiltenwolf; A-C Pfeifer; J Heidari; M Kellmann; P-M Wippert Journal: Schmerz Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 1.107
Authors: Borja Matías Pompa; Almudena López López; Miriam Alonso Fernández; Estefanía Vargas Moreno; José Luis González Gutiérrez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Rebeca Barqueiro de Oliveira; Isadora Orlando de Oliveira; Eliane Antonioli; Mario Lenza; Mario Ferretti Journal: Einstein (Sao Paulo) Date: 2022-04-01