4.6 Article

Fear-avoidance beliefs and catastrophizing: occurrence and risk factor in back pain and ADL in the general population

期刊

PAIN
卷 99, 期 3, 页码 485-491

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00265-8

关键词

back pain; catastrophizing; fear-avoidance beliefs; general population

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fear-avoidance beliefs and catastrophizing have been shown to be powerful cognitions in the process of developing chronic pain problems and there is a need for increased knowledge in early stages of pain. The objectives of this study were therefore, firstly, to examine the occurrence of fear-avoidance beliefs and catastrophizing in groups with different degrees of non-chronic spinal pain in a general population, and secondly to assess if fear-avoidance beliefs and catastrophizing were related to current ratings of pain and activities of daily living (ADL). The study was a part of a population based back pain project and the study sample consisted of 917 men and women, 35-45 years old, either pain-free or with non-chronic spinal pain. The results showed that fear-avoidance beliefs as well as catastrophizing occur in this general population of non-patients. The levels were moderate and in catastrophizing a 'dose-response' pattern was seen, such that more the catastrophizing was, the more was pain. The study showed two relationships, which were between fear-avoidance and ADL as well as between catastrophizing and pain intensity. Logistic regression analyses were performed with 95% confidence intervals and the odds ratio for fear-avoidance beliefs and ADL was 2.5 and for catastrophizing and pain 1.8, both with confidence interval above unity. The results suggest that fear-avoidance beliefs and catastrophizing may play an active part in the transition from acute to chronic pain and clinical implications include screening and early intervention. (C) 2002 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据