Low Back Pain-Related Disability Is Associated with Pain-Related Beliefs Across Divergent Non-English-Speaking Populations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined relationships between low back pain (LBP)-related disability and pain beliefs, including pain catastrophizing, pain-related fear, self-efficacy, and back pain beliefs, in non-English-speaking populations. Additionally, the effects of selected cultural factors (i.e., language/geographic area) on the strength of relationships were examined. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Nine databases were searched. Studies included observational or randomized control clinical trials. Eligible studies had to report estimates of the association between pain beliefs and disability. Pooled estimates of correlation coefficients were obtained through random-effects meta-analysis methods. RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies, (n = 15,383) were included. Moderate correlations were identified between disability and pain self-efficacy (chronic LBP r = -0.51, P ≤ 0.001), between disability and pain catastrophizing (acute LBP r = 0.47, P ≤ 0.001; chronic LBP r = 0.44, P ≤ 0.001), and also between disability and pain-related fear (chronic LBP r = 0.41, P ≤ 0.001). Otherwise, weak correlations were identified between disability and most pain beliefs (range r = -0.23 to 0.35, P ≤ 0.001). Pooled correlation coefficients between disability and all pain beliefs (except the Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire-Work subscale) represent medium effects and suggest that lower disability was associated with greater pain self-efficacy, less pain-related fear, less catastrophic thinking, and less negative back pain beliefs about the nature and cause of back pain. Results were consistent across most language groups and geographic regions; few studies reported ethnicity or religion. DISCUSSION: LBP-related disability was associated with pain-related beliefs, with consistency demonstrated for each pain belief construct across divergent non-English-speaking populations. Further research examining cultural factors, such as ethnicity or religion, and with a more diverse population is warranted.

Investigating the relationship between lifestyle factors, family history, and diabetes mellitus in non-diabetic visitors to primary care centers.

We investigated the risk levels associated with diabetes mellitus. They were assessed based on whether anyone in their family had a history of diabetes. The data collected are measurements of blood pressure, weight, height, and smoking habits, as well as physical activity and educational status. Based on the American Diabetes Association's (ADA) recommendations, the questionnaire included a diabetes risk assessment. The risk of diabetes was 76.3% among participants with a family history of diabetes. There is a 41.1% chance of diabetes among those participants whose fathers had diabetes, and a 39.3% chance of diabetes among those participants whose mothers had diabetes. Additionally, those participants who have siblings with diabetes were 24% at high risk for developing diabetes. The prevalence of the risk of having a family history of diabetes is higher in the women in the family (RR = 3.12; P = 0.0001) as compared to the men in the family (RR = 1.9; P = 0.0001). Risk of diabetes more in the male (1.13 times higher) in the current study based on the ADA scale. There is evidence that various factors, including lifestyle choices, physical attributes, and family history, influence the risk of developing diabetes in the current study. The results of the current study indicate that there is a strong association between patients with T2D and those who have a family history of diabetes. Considering Saudi Arabia's high diabetes risk, evidence-based lifestyle modifications are needed.

Management of Low back pain in Saudi Arabia healthcare system. A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic low back pain can contribute to a global socioeconomic burden. Current international recommendations emphasize that low back pain management should occur at the primary-care level. However, there is a lack of essential services for low back pain management at the primary-care level in Saudi Arabia. We explored the current state of low back pain management in Saudi Arabia from the perspective of spine surgeons and physiotherapists. METHODS: A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews was conducted on spine surgeons and physiotherapists. A total of 17 healthcare workers, 8 spine surgeons (age range 28-49 years) and 9 physiotherapists (age range 30-49 years) participated in the study. Data were recorded and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified from the interview data that outlined current low back pain management in Saudi Arabia: clinical guideline availability and pathways of care, utilization of primary care services, and overutilization of secondary care resources. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests underutilization of primary care services and overutilization of secondary care services in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the implementation of local clinical guidelines could improve patient care as well as reduce the cost of low back pain management.

Attitudes and Beliefs of Primary Care Physicians Working in Saudi Arabia Regarding the Management of Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare professionals' beliefs and attitudes towards low back pain management play a significant role during treatment. This is a crucial aspect of primary care physicians working as a first point of contact for people seeking healthcare for low back pain. AIM: To identify the beliefs and behaviors of frontline healthcare professionals (primary care physicians) working in the Riyadh region with regard to low back pain management. METHODS: A cross-sectional design was implemented, in which the Pain Attitude and Beliefs Scale (PABS) questionnaire was used along with a low back pain clinical vignette with some questions. The PABS assesses healthcare provider orientations toward low back pain with two subscales: biomedical and behavioral. In total, 400 primary care physicians working in the Riyadh region of Saudi Arabia were invited to participate. RESULTS: The responding primary care physicians (n = 72, response rate = 18%) provided an average score on the behavioral subscale (mean = 31.5±7.1) that was lower than that on the biomedical subscale (36.5±7.8) of the PABS. The lower scores in the biomedical subscale are associated with the using of clinical guidelines for low back pain management (χ 2 (1) = 4.7, p = 0.03). Moreover, providing guideline-based advices regarding activity and work was more likely to come from those scoring above the mean in the behavioral subscale. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that Saudi Arabian primary care physicians manage their patients within a biomedical framework; there is some compliance to the current low back pain clinical guidelines among these physicians, with under/post-graduate education being needed for these professionals to adopt a more biopsychosocial framework during low back pain management.

Multidimensional prognostic factors for chronic low back pain-related disability: a longitudinal study in a Saudi population.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major health problem. Identifying prognostic factors is essential for identifying people at risk of developing CLBP-related disability. PURPOSE: To examine associations between CLBP-related disability at 12-month follow-up and individual, psychosocial and physical factors at baseline, as well as treatment-related factors between baseline and 12-month follow-up among a Saudi population. Additionally, associations between pain intensity and general perceived efficacy (GPE) at 12 months were examined with the aforementioned factors. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred Saudi participants over 18 years with a history of LBP greater than 3 months' duration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome variable was CLBP-related disability measured by the Arabic Oswestry disability index. Secondary outcome measures were pain intensity over the prior week measured by the VAS and the participant's global perceptions of recovery (general perceived efficacy [GPE]) at 12 months. METHODS: At baseline (n=115), participants completed questionnaires covering demographics, disability, pain intensity, back beliefs, fear avoidance, psychological distress, and physical activity. They performed standardized physical performance tests, including assessment of pain behaviors using a pain behavior scale. After 12 months, participants (n=100) completed questionnaires on disability, pain intensity, GPE and provided treatment-related information during the previous year. Predictors of disability, pain, and GPE were explored using univariate and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: The prognostic model for moderate-severe CLBP-related disability at 12 months explained 53.0% of the variance. Higher pain intensity, higher fear-avoidance work, and older age predicted higher disability. Having no additional somatic symptoms predicted lower disability. Pain intensity at 12-month follow-up was explained by higher disability at baseline, while not being in paid employment appeared protective (25.7% of variance explained). As univariate associations were weak between predictor variables and GPE, multivariate analysis was not conducted. CONCLUSION: The study results supported the multifactorial nature of CLBP and reported an important prognostic model in the Saudi population.

Pain Intensity and Fear Avoidance Explain Disability Related to Chronic Low Back Pain in a Saudi Arabian Population.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe multi-dimensional profiles for people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and to examine the associations between CLBP-related disability and individual, psychosocial and physical factors in a Saudi population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CLBP-related disability is a multidimensional phenomenon. There is growing interest in exploring factors associated with CLBP-related disability in Saudi Arabia but research is limited in comparison to other countries. METHODS: Participants completed questionnaires covering demographics, pain intensity, back beliefs, fear avoidance, psychological distress, and physical activity. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was used to measure disability. Participants also performed a standardized sequence of physical performance tests and a Pain Behavior Scale was used to evaluate pain behaviors during performance of these tests. The relationships between disability and all variables were explored using univariate and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen participants were included, 63% of whom were female. Participants demonstrated moderate disability (mean [SD]: 26.6 [13.5]). The mean (SD) back beliefs score was 28.6 (7.3). Mean depression, anxiety, and stress (DASS 21) scores indicated mild distress; however, 26% to 39% scored in the moderate to severe range for at least one subscale. In univariate analyses, pain intensity and fear avoidance beliefs (physical activity and work) were moderately associated with disability (r = 0.56, 0.49, 0.52, respectively, P < 0.001), with all other factors demonstrating weak association. Multivariate regression revealed that pain intensity, fear avoidance beliefs, psychological distress, and participants' age were all found to be associated with disability, accounting for 52.9% (adjusted R = 0.529) of variability. CONCLUSION: This study provides a unique insight into the clinical profile of people with CLBP in a Saudi Arabian population. Pain and psychosocial factors were significantly associated with disability. This study supports the contention that CLBP-related disability is a multifactorial biopsychosocial condition across different cultures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Pain Behaviour Scale (PaBS): An Exploratory Study of Reliability and Construct Validity in a Chronic Low Back Pain Population.

Objectives: To examine the interrater and intrarater reliability and construct validity of the Pain Behaviour Scale during standard physical performance tests in people with chronic low back pain and to confirm the test-retest reliability of the physical performance tests in this population. The Pain Behaviour Scale (PaBS) is an observational scale that was recently designed to uniquely measure both the presence and severity of observed pain behaviours. Methods: Twenty-two participants with chronic low back pain were observed during performance of five physical performance tests by two raters. Pain behaviours were assessed using the Pain Behaviour Scale. The Visual Analogue Scale and Modified Oswestry Disability Index were used to measure pain and disability, respectively. Descriptive statistics were used to report demographic features of participants. Reliability was analyzed using ICCs. Rater agreement was analyzed using the weighted Cohen's kappa. Correlations between PaBS, self-reported measures, and physical performance tests were calculated using Pearson's product-moment correlations. Results: The PaBS demonstrated excellent interrater (ICC2,1 = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.0) and intrarater (ICC3,1 = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.8 to 1.0) reliability. Component physical performance tests (i.e., time and distance) demonstrated good test-retest (0.6-1.0) reliability. Perfect agreement in the reporting of pain behaviours was found (95-100%). Correlations between pain behaviour severity and pain intensity (r = 0.6) and disability (r = 0.6) were moderate. Moderate correlations were found between pain behaviours and physical performance tests in sit to stand (r = 0.5), trunk flexion (r = 0.4), timed up and go (r = 0.4), and 50-foot walk (r = 0.4). Conclusion: The Pain Behaviour Scale is a valid and reliable tool for measuring the presence and severity of pain behaviour, and the physical performance tests are reliable tests.