Illness Perceptions Explain the Variance in Functional Disability, but Not Habitual Physical Activity, in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Although the importance of psychosocial factors has been highlighted in many studies in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is a lack of research examining the role of illness perceptions in explaining functional disability and physical activity in patients with CLBP. AIM: The aim of the study was to explore the value of illness perceptions in explaining functional disability and physical activity in patients with CLBP. METHODS: Eighty-four participants with CLBP (of > 3 months' duration) completed a battery of questionnaires investigating psychosocial factors (Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS], Illness Perceptions Questionnaire Revised [IPQ-R], and 36-Item Short Form mental health scale [SF-36_MH]) and perceived pain intensity (visual analog scale [VAS]), as well as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Baecke questionnaire. The latter 2 were entered separately as dependent variables in a regression analysis. RESULTS: The combined variables (VAS, PCS, SF-36_MH, IPQ-R) accounted for 62% of the variance in functional disability (ODI). Adding the results of the IPQ-R to the scores of the other 3 variables (VAS, PCS, SF-36_MH) significantly increased the explained variance of ODI scores in CLBP patients, yielding 18% additional information (P < 0.01). Only 5% of the variance in the Baecke questionnaire was explained by combining the 4 variables. None of the single variables alone made a significant contribution to R². CONCLUSIONS: Illness perceptions are an important factor for explaining functional disability, but not for explaining habitual physical activity in CLBP patients.

Effect of a physical conditioning versus health promotion intervention in dancers: a randomized controlled trial.

Although dancing requires extensive physical exertion, dancers do not often train their physical fitness outside dance classes. Reduced aerobic capacity, lower muscle strength and altered motor control have been suggested as contributing factors for musculoskeletal injuries in dancers. This randomized controlled trial examined whether an intervention program improves aerobic capacity and explosive strength and reduces musculoskeletal injuries in dancers. Forty-four dancers were randomly allocated to a 4-month conditioning (i.e. endurance, strength and motor control training) or health promotion program (educational sessions). Outcome assessment was conducted by blinded assessors. When accounting for differences at baseline, no significant differences were observed between the groups following the intervention, except for the subscale "Pain" of the Short Form 36 Questionnaire (p = 0.03). Injury incidence rate and the proportion of injured dancers were identical in both groups, but dancers following the conditioning program had significant less low back injuries (p = 0.02). Supplementing regular dance training with a 4-month conditioning program does not lead to a significant increase in aerobic capacity or explosive strength in pre-professional dancers compared to a health promotion program without conditioning training, but leads to less reported pain. Further research should explore how additional training may be organized, taking into account the demanding dance schedule of pre-professional dancers. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01440153.

Clinical assessment of the scapula: a review of the literature.

Scientific evidence supporting a role for faulty scapular positioning in patients with various shoulder disorders is cumulating. Clinicians who manage patients with shoulder pain and athletes at risk of developing shoulder pain need to have the skills to assess static and dynamic scapular positioning and dynamic control. Several methods for the assessment of scapular positioning are described in scientific literature. However, the majority uses expensive and specialised equipment (laboratory methods), making their use in clinical practice nearly impossible. On the basis of biometric and kinematic studies, guidelines for interpreting the observation of static and dynamic scapular positioning pattern in patients with shoulder pain are provided. At this point, clinicians can use reliable clinical tests for the assessment of both static and dynamic scapular positioning in patients with shoulder pain. However, this review also provides clinicians several possible pitfalls when performing clinical scapular evaluation. On the basis of its clinical relevance, its proven reliability, its relation to body length and its applicability in a clinical setting, this review recommends to assess the scapula both static (visual observation and acromial distance or Baylor/double square method for shoulder protraction) and semidynamic (visual observation and inclinometry for scapular upward rotation). In addition, when the patient demonstrates with shoulder impingement symptoms, the scapular repositioning test and scapular assistant test are recommended for relating the patients' symptoms to the position or movement of the scapula.

Reliability of the assessment of lumbar range of motion and maximal isometric strength in patients with chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the interobserver reliability of the assessment of lumbar range of motion (ROM) and maximal isometric strength in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) using commercially available equipment. DESIGN: A prospective repeated-measures design. SETTING: Ambulatory care in a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve patients (5 men, 7 women; age range, 20-52y) with CLBP, with a mean visual analog scale score of 31.5+/-25.8mm, volunteered for the study. The duration of their symptoms was 63+/-115 months and the mean Oswestry Disability Index score was 31%. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Movements of the lumbar spine were assessed with commercially available equipment. Both the range of motion (ROM) and the maximal isometric strength for flexion, extension, lateroflexion, and rotation of the lumbar spine were evaluated twice to analyze the interobserver reliability. The same test procedure was performed on 2 separate days by 2 investigators who were blinded to the outcome of the assessment of their colleague. The order of investigator was balanced, so that each investigator tested the same number of patients as first investigator. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient varied between .91 and .98 for the measurements of the lumbar ROM and was between .93 and .97 for all the strength measurements. Post hoc power analysis confirmed previous power analysis, that is, despite the small sample size, an excellent power was found for the observed interobserver reliability coefficients (power range, 0.93-1.00). No learning effect was found when comparing the results of the second measurement with the first measurement (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: The interobserver reliability is excellent for the measurement of the ROM of the lumbar spine and for the maximal isometric strength using specific devices in patients with CLBP.