What do people believe to be the cause of low back pain? A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how causal beliefs regarding non-specific low back pain (LBP) have been quantitatively investigated. METHODS: A scoping review based on the guidelines by the JBI (former Joanna Briggs Institute) was conducted. We searched Medline, Embase, Psychinfo, and CINAHL for relevant studies and included peer-reviewed original articles that measured causal beliefs about non-specific LBP among adults and reported results separate from other belief domains. RESULTS: A total of 81 studies were included, of which 62 (77%) had cross sectional designs, 11 (14%) were cohort studies, 3 (4%) randomized controlled trials, 4 (5%) non-randomized controlled trials, and 1 (1%) case control. Only 15 studies explicitly mentioned cause, triggers, or etiology in the study aim. We identified the use of 6 questionnaires from which a measure of causal beliefs could be obtained. The most frequently used questionnaire was the Illness Perception Questionnaire which was used in 8 of the included studies. The studies covered 308 unique causal belief items which we categorized into 15 categories, the most frequently investigated being causal beliefs related to "structural injury or impairment", which was investigated in 45 (56%) of the studies. The second and third most prevalent categories were related to "lifting and bending" (26 studies [32%]) and "mental or psychological" (24 studies [30%]). CONCLUSION: There is a large variation in how causal beliefs are measured and a lack of studies designed to investigate causal beliefs, and of studies determining a longitudinal association between such beliefs and patient outcomes. This scoping review identified an evidence gap and can inspire future research in this field.

Beliefs about back pain and associations with clinical outcomes: a primary care cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations between beliefs about low back pain (LBP) at baseline and pain intensity and disability at 2-week, 13-week and 52-week follow-up. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Primary care private chiropractic clinics in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2734 adults consulting a chiropractor for a new episode of LBP, with follow-up data available from 71%, 61% and 52% of the participants at 2, 13 and 52 weeks, respectively. OUTCOME MEASURES: Beliefs about LBP were measured by the Back Belief Questionnaire (BBQ) before consulting the chiropractor. Pain (Numerical Rating Scale 0-10) and disability (the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) were measured at baseline and after 2, 13 and 52 weeks. Associations were explored using longitudinal linear mixed models estimating interactions between BBQ and time, and by estimating associations between single items of BBQ and 13-week outcomes. RESULTS: More positive beliefs about LBP were weakly associated with a reduction in pain at 2 weeks (ß interaction BBQ#Time=-0.02 (95% CI -0.04 to -0.001)), at 13 weeks (-0.03 (95% CI -0.05 to -0.01)) and at 52 weeks of follow-up (-0.03 (95% CI -0.05 to -0.01); p=0.003). For disability, the association was uncertain (p=0.7). The item 'Back trouble means periods of pain for the rest of one's life' had the strongest association with both reduction in pain (-0.29, 95% CI -0.4 to -0.19, p<0.001) and disability (-2.42, 95% CI -3.52 to -1.33, p<0.001) at 13-week follow-up. CONCLUSION: Positive beliefs regarding LBP, measured by the BBQ, were associated with a reduction in pain intensity at both short-term and long-term follow-up. However, the association was weak, and the clinical relevance is therefore questionable. No clear association was demonstrated between beliefs and disability. This study did not show promise that back beliefs as measured by the BBQ were helpful for predicting or explaining the course of LBP in this setting.

Back beliefs in patients with low back pain: a primary care cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Back Belief Questionnaire (BBQ) measures beliefs about negative consequences of back pain. The aim of this study was to describe the back beliefs of a large clinical population with low back pain (LBP), to investigate the associations between back beliefs and patient characteristics when care-seeking, and between on-going pain and back beliefs at follow up. METHODS: Patients aged over 18, consulting with LBP with or without radicular pain of all symptom durations, were recruited from chiropractic clinics. The BBQ was completed on the first visit and at 3- and 12-month follow-ups. Sociodemographic- and symptom-related questions were answered at baseline. A BBQ sum score was calculated at all three time points, and linear regression was used to analyse the cross-sectional association between baseline patient characteristics and BBQ scores. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test differences in BBQ scores for patients with and without on-going LBP at 3- and 12-months follow up. RESULTS: The baseline population consisted of 2295 participants. The median BBQ sum scores at baseline, 3 and 12 months had interquartile ranges of 33 [29-36], 33 [29-37], and 31 [27-35] respectively. Patient characteristics and symptoms were associated with baseline BBQ scores (p < 0.05), but most association were weak. The strongest association was with severe disability (4.0 points (95% CI 3.3-4.6) lower BBQ than no disability). Negative beliefs were related to more severe LBP at baseline and with on-going pain at follow up. CONCLUSION: At a population level, back beliefs were generally positive and relatively constant over time, but misconceptions about a poor prognosis were common. Studies exploring individual patterns of back beliefs and associations with clinical outcomes over time are recommended.

Prevalence of MRI findings in the cervical spine in patients with persistent neck pain based on quantification of narrative MRI reports.

Background: Previous studies of patients with neck pain have reported a high variability in prevalence of MRI findings of disc degeneration, disc herniation etc. This is most likely due to small and heterogenous study populations. Reasons for only including small study samples could be the high cost and time-consuming procedures of having radiologists coding the MRIs. Other methods for extracting reliable imaging data should therefore be explored.The objectives of this study were 1) to examine inter-rater reliability among a group of chiropractic master students in extracting information about cervical MRI-findings from radiologists´ narrative reports, and 2) to describe the prevalence of MRI findings in the cervical spine among different age groups in patients above age 18 with neck pain. Method: Adult patients with neck pain (with or without arm pain) seen in a public hospital department between 2011 and 2014 who had an MRI of the cervical spine were identified in the patient registry 'SpineData'. MRI-findings were extracted and quantified from radiologists' narrative reports by second-year chiropractic master students based on a set of coding rules for the process.The inter-rater reliability was quantified with Kappa statistics and the prevalence of the MRI findings were calculated. Results: In total, narrative MRI reports from 611 patients were included. The patients had a mean age of 52 years (SD 13; range 19-87) and 63% were women. The inter-observer agreement in coding MRI findings ranged from substantial (κ = 0.78, CI: 0.33-1.00) to almost perfect (κ = 0.98, CI: 0.95-1.00).The most prevalent MRI findings were foraminal stenosis (77%), uncovertebral arthrosis (74%) and disc degeneration (67%) while the least prevalent findings were nerve root compromise (2%) and Modic changes type 2 (6%). Modic type 1 was mentioned in 25% of the radiologists' reports. The prevalence of all findings increased with age, except disc herniation which was most prevalent for patients in their forties. Conclusion: MRI-findings from radiologists' narrative reports can reliably be extracted by chiropractic master students with a minimum of training. Degenerative findings in the cervical spine were most commonly found at levels C5/C6 and C6/C7 and increased with age.