Catastrophising, pain, and disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain

IF 0.9 Q4 REHABILITATION Hong Kong Physiotherapy Journal Pub Date : 2015-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.hkpj.2015.03.001
Michael Opeoluwa Ogunlana MSc, Adesola Christiana Odole PhD, Adebayo Adejumo PhD, Nse Odunaiya MEd
{"title":"Catastrophising, pain, and disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain","authors":"Michael Opeoluwa Ogunlana MSc,&nbsp;Adesola Christiana Odole PhD,&nbsp;Adebayo Adejumo PhD,&nbsp;Nse Odunaiya MEd","doi":"10.1016/j.hkpj.2015.03.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Attention has been drawn to examining the contributions of “catastrophising” to the prediction of pain and disability in individuals with low back pain (LBP).</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>This study investigated the proportion of patients with LBP who engaged in catastrophic thinking about pain and its association with pain intensity and disability. We also investigated the components of pain catastrophising that is predictive of disability.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A total of 275 participants with nonspecific LBP completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, the quadruple visual analog scale, and the Revised Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (RODQ). The associations among pain intensity, disability, and catastrophising were investigated using <em>t</em> test. The components of catastrophising that best predicts disability were investigated using multiple linear regressions, and the level of significance was set at 0.05.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The majority (85.5%) of the participants had LBP for more than 6 weeks, with 45.5% of the participants having moderate disability and 52.7% being high catastrophisers. High catastrophisers to pain had a significantly higher rating of pain intensity (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001) and higher score on the RODQ than low catastrophisers to pain. The main components of catastrophising that predicts disability were magnification (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001) and rumination (<em>p</em> = 0.006).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Clinicians should screen patients with nonspecific LBP for a heightened level of catastrophic thinking and endeavour to manage such when present.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44774,"journal":{"name":"Hong Kong Physiotherapy Journal","volume":"33 2","pages":"Pages 73-79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.hkpj.2015.03.001","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hong Kong Physiotherapy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1013702515000196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Background

Attention has been drawn to examining the contributions of “catastrophising” to the prediction of pain and disability in individuals with low back pain (LBP).

Objectives

This study investigated the proportion of patients with LBP who engaged in catastrophic thinking about pain and its association with pain intensity and disability. We also investigated the components of pain catastrophising that is predictive of disability.

Methods

A total of 275 participants with nonspecific LBP completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, the quadruple visual analog scale, and the Revised Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (RODQ). The associations among pain intensity, disability, and catastrophising were investigated using t test. The components of catastrophising that best predicts disability were investigated using multiple linear regressions, and the level of significance was set at 0.05.

Results

The majority (85.5%) of the participants had LBP for more than 6 weeks, with 45.5% of the participants having moderate disability and 52.7% being high catastrophisers. High catastrophisers to pain had a significantly higher rating of pain intensity (p < 0.001) and higher score on the RODQ than low catastrophisers to pain. The main components of catastrophising that predicts disability were magnification (p < 0.001) and rumination (p = 0.006).

Conclusion

Clinicians should screen patients with nonspecific LBP for a heightened level of catastrophic thinking and endeavour to manage such when present.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非特异性腰痛患者的灾难、疼痛和残疾
研究“灾难化”对下腰痛(LBP)患者疼痛和残疾预测的贡献已经引起了人们的关注。目的探讨腰痛患者发生灾难性疼痛思维的比例及其与疼痛强度和残疾的关系。我们还研究了预测残疾的疼痛灾难的组成部分。方法对275例非特异性腰痛患者进行疼痛化量表、四重视觉模拟量表和修正Oswestry残疾问卷(RODQ)的测试。采用t检验研究疼痛强度、残疾和灾难化之间的关系。使用多元线性回归研究灾变中最能预测残疾的成分,显著性水平设为0.05。结果大多数参与者(85.5%)的LBP持续时间超过6周,其中45.5%的参与者为中度残疾,52.7%的参与者为高灾变者。高痛苦灾难者的疼痛强度评分显著更高(p <0.001),并且在RODQ上的得分高于对疼痛的低灾难者。预测残疾的灾变的主要成分是放大(p <0.001)和反刍(p = 0.006)。结论临床医生应筛查非特异性腰痛患者是否存在高水平的灾难性思维,并在出现这种思维时努力加以控制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
13
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hong Kong Physiotherapy Journal is the official journal of the Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association Limited (HKPA Ltd). This peer-reviewed journal aims to contribute to and document the advancements in the principles and practice of physiotherapy in Hong Kong.The Hong Kong Physiotherapy Journal is published annually and papers are categorized into research reports, treatment reports, technical reports, literature reviews, and letters to the editor.
期刊最新文献
Level of self-efficacy among skill-based allied health students in the University of Santo Tomas-Enriched Virtual Mode of learning: A cross-sectional study. Physical therapy exercises for improving intermittent exotropia control post-strabismus surgery: A randomized controlled study Reliability and validity of modified upper limb neurodynamic tests in patients with cervical radiculopathy The test-induced warm-up effect on hamstring flexibility tests Effect of Kinesio taping versus mechanical cervical traction combined with physiotherapy program on chronic neck pain in young female university students
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1