Knowledge related to low back pain and its associated factors in patients with low back pain: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Patients' knowledge about low back pain (LBP) negatively influences LBP prognosis. Studying the extent of patients' knowledge about LBP may help clinicians design effective LBP treatment strategies. OBJECTIVE: To explore the level of LBP knowledge and its associated factors in patients with LBP. METHODS: A cross-sectional study with a representative sample. Participants with acute or chronic LBP completed a self-administered questionnaire including sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. We used the Low Back Pain Knowledge Questionnaire (LBP_KQ) to assess knowledge, the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire for LBP (FABQ_LBP) to assess fear of movement, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) to assess functional disability, Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS 21) to assess mental health status, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) to assess pain intensity. RESULTS: A total of 271 individuals with LBP completed the study. The mean age of participants was 39.86 (± 11.27), the LBP chronicity median was 18 (IQR = 44) months, and 56.5% of the participants were females. The mean LBP_KQ score was 9.29 (± 3.89)/24. An educational level higher than high school (diploma education (ß= 1.202 [95%CI: 5.633 to 11.498], p< 0.001), bachelor or higher education (ß= 2.270 [95%CI: 1.107 to 3.433], p< 0.001)), and using pain killers (ß= 1.180 [95%CI: 0.140 to 2.221], p= 0.026) were significantly associated with higher LBP_KQ score. While being employed (ß=-1.422 [95%CI: -2.462 to -0.382], p= 0.008) and having higher DASS Anxiety score (ß=-0.144 [95%CI: -0.240 to -0.048], p= 0.003) were significantly associated with lower LBP_KQ score. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with chronic LBP in Jordan demonstrated relatively low levels of LBP knowledge related to their condition. Rehabilitation personnel, healthcare stakeholders, and policymakers should carefully monitor the level of LBP knowledge and its associated factors.

Adaptation of the Arabic versions of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for adults and elderly with permanent sensorineural hearing loss.

Objective: To translate the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA) and Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) into Arabic while ensuring that the reliability and validity are the same as those of the original English versions.Design: Descriptive, cross-sectional study.Study sample: In total, 115 individuals with hearing impairment and 114 controls with normal hearing completed the Arabic versions of HHIA/HHIE. Each subject underwent a complete audiological evaluation before answering the questionnaires. The construct and discriminant validities were determined in addition to the reliability, which was investigated by calculating the internal and test-retest consistencies.Results: Internal consistency between the total and subscale scores were excellent for the Arabic versions of HHIA and HHIE (Cronbach's alpha: ∼0.90). With regard to the test-retest reproducibility, the Spearman's correlation coefficient for consistency between total scores obtained at baseline and those obtained at 6 weeks was acceptable (r = 0.761, p < 0.0001). The total scores were statistically proportional to the degree of hearing loss. Moreover, the questionnaire successfully differentiated between individuals with hearing impairment and those with normal hearing.Conclusions: Our findings clarified that the Arabic versions of HHIA and HHIE are acceptable tools for evaluating the psychological influences of hearing loss in Arabic populations.