The general public as well as physiotherapists evaluate spinal flexion as dangerous regardless of their own low back pain history

IF 2.2 3区医学 Q1 REHABILITATION

Musculoskeletal Science and Practice Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.msksp.2024.103216

Tomas Kavka , Tomas Nedoma , Zuzana Blahova

{"title":"The general public as well as physiotherapists evaluate spinal flexion as dangerous regardless of their own low back pain history","authors":"Tomas Kavka , Tomas Nedoma , Zuzana Blahova","doi":"10.1016/j.msksp.2024.103216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Maladaptive fear of movement in individuals with low back pain may be associated with worse clinical outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To explore beliefs about the perceived dangers regarding different spinal postures within the Czech Republic.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Exploratory cross-sectional study including physiotherapists and members of the general public.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Self-reported perceived safety/danger of “straight” and “flexed” spinal postures regarding 1) sitting, 2) lifting of light and 3) heavy object from the floor based on three pairs of photographs was measured using numeric rating scales (0–10, safe to dangerous) without any given context and in the context of low back pain. The sum of differences between the ratings of flexed and straight postures were used to calculate Bending Safety Beliefs Thermometer (BSB<sub>Thermometer</sub>) total score potentially ranging -60‒60 (higher values indicates evaluation of flexed spinal postures as more dangerous in comparison to straight postures).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>760 participants were included in the analysis. The mean BSB<sub>Thermometer</sub> total score was 31.1 (SD 16.1) and higher scores were positively associated with being women (b = 14.8, 95% CI [9.9–19.8]); non-medical profession (b = 24.7, 95% CI [15.2–34.2]); age (b = 0.38, 95% CI [0.16–0.6]; and their interactions. There was no significant association with current low back pain status or history of low back pain.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>On average, participants evaluated “flexed” spinal postures as significantly more dangerous when compared with “straight” spinal postures, with only subgroups of physiotherapists scoring lower than the general public. Clinically, these beliefs could be targeted by individualized education, exposure-based interventions and public campaigns; however, further research is required.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56036,"journal":{"name":"Musculoskeletal Science and Practice","volume":"74 ","pages":"Article 103216"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Musculoskeletal Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468781224003114","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Maladaptive fear of movement in individuals with low back pain may be associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Objective

To explore beliefs about the perceived dangers regarding different spinal postures within the Czech Republic.

Design

Exploratory cross-sectional study including physiotherapists and members of the general public.

Methods

Self-reported perceived safety/danger of “straight” and “flexed” spinal postures regarding 1) sitting, 2) lifting of light and 3) heavy object from the floor based on three pairs of photographs was measured using numeric rating scales (0–10, safe to dangerous) without any given context and in the context of low back pain. The sum of differences between the ratings of flexed and straight postures were used to calculate Bending Safety Beliefs Thermometer (BSB_Thermometer) total score potentially ranging -60‒60 (higher values indicates evaluation of flexed spinal postures as more dangerous in comparison to straight postures).

Results

760 participants were included in the analysis. The mean BSB_Thermometer total score was 31.1 (SD 16.1) and higher scores were positively associated with being women (b = 14.8, 95% CI [9.9–19.8]); non-medical profession (b = 24.7, 95% CI [15.2–34.2]); age (b = 0.38, 95% CI [0.16–0.6]; and their interactions. There was no significant association with current low back pain status or history of low back pain.

Conclusions

On average, participants evaluated “flexed” spinal postures as significantly more dangerous when compared with “straight” spinal postures, with only subgroups of physiotherapists scoring lower than the general public. Clinically, these beliefs could be targeted by individualized education, exposure-based interventions and public campaigns; however, further research is required.

查看原文本刊更多论文

一般人和物理治疗师都认为脊柱弯曲是危险的，不管他们自己是否有腰痛病史。

背景：腰背痛患者对运动的适应性恐惧可能与更差的临床疗效有关：腰背痛患者对运动的适应性恐惧可能与更差的临床结果有关：目的：探讨捷克共和国国内对不同脊柱姿势危险性的看法：设计：探索性横断面研究，包括物理治疗师和普通公众：方法：根据三对照片，使用数字评分量表（0-10 分，从安全到危险），在没有任何特定背景的情况下以及在腰背痛的背景下，测量 "直 "和 "屈 "脊柱姿势对 1）坐姿、2）从地板上提起轻物和 3）重物的安全性/危险性的自我感知。弯曲姿势和直立姿势的评分差异之和被用来计算弯曲安全信念温度计（BSBThermometer）的总分，潜在范围为-60-60（数值越高，表明脊柱弯曲姿势与直立姿势相比越危险）：共有 760 名参与者参与分析。BSBThermometer 总分的平均值为 31.1（标准差为 16.1），得分越高与女性（b = 14.8，95% CI [9.9-19.8]）、非医疗职业（b = 24.7，95% CI [15.2-34.2]）、年龄（b = 0.38，95% CI [0.16-0.6]）及其交互作用呈正相关。与当前腰背痛状况或腰背痛病史无明显关联：平均而言，与 "直 "脊柱姿势相比，参与者认为 "屈 "脊柱姿势更危险，只有物理治疗师亚群的得分低于普通大众。在临床上，可以通过个性化教育、基于暴露的干预措施和公共宣传活动来纠正这些观念；但是，还需要进一步的研究。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Musculoskeletal Science and Practice Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

CiteScore

4.10

自引率

8.70%

发文量

152

审稿时长

48 days

期刊介绍： Musculoskeletal Science & Practice, international journal of musculoskeletal physiotherapy, is a peer-reviewed international journal (previously Manual Therapy), publishing high quality original research, review and Masterclass articles that contribute to improving the clinical understanding of appropriate care processes for musculoskeletal disorders. The journal publishes articles that influence or add to the body of evidence on diagnostic and therapeutic processes, patient centered care, guidelines for musculoskeletal therapeutics and theoretical models that support developments in assessment, diagnosis, clinical reasoning and interventions.