4.6 Article

The role of fear-avoidance beliefs in acute low back pain: relationships with current and future disability and work status

期刊

PAIN
卷 94, 期 1, 页码 7-15

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00333-5

关键词

low back pain; fear avoidance beliefs; screening; secondary prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fear-avoidance beliefs have been identified as an important psychosocial variable in patients with chronic disability doe to low back pain. The importance of fear-avoidance beliefs for individuals with acute low back pain has not been explored. Seventy-eight subjects with work-related low back pain of less than 3 weeks' duration were studied. Measurements of pain intensity, physical impairment, disability, nonorganic signs and symptoms, and depression were taken at the initial evaluation. Fear-avoidance beliefs were measured with the work and physical activity subscales of the Fear-avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. Disability and work status were re-assessed after 4 weeks of physical therapy. Patterns of correlation between fear-avoidance beliefs and other concurrently-measured variables were similar to those reported in patients with chronic low back pain. Fear-avoidance beliefs did not explain a significant amount of the variability in initial disability levels after controlling for pain intensity and physical impairment. Fear-avoidance beliefs about work were significant predictors of 4-week disability and work status even after controlling for initial levels of pain intensity, physical impairment, and disability, and the type of therapy received. Fear-avoidance beliefs are present in patients with acute low back pain, and may be an important factor in explaining the transition from acute to chronic conditions. Screening for fear-avoidance beliefs may be useful for identifying patients at risk of prolonged disability and work absence. (C) 2001 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