Fear-avoidance Beliefs About Back Pain in Patients With Acute LBP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with acute low back pain (LBP) and to identify features of patients and general practitioners (GPs) associated with patients' fear-avoidance beliefs. METHODS: A cross-sectional study conducted in primary care practice in France. A total of 709 GPs completed a self-administered questionnaire assessing fear-avoidance beliefs [the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ)] and 2,727 patients with acute LBP completed a self-administered questionnaire assessing pain, perceived handicap and disability (on the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale) and fear-avoidance beliefs (on the FABQ). RESULTS: Patients' FABQ mean scores were 16.8+/-5.0 for physical activities (FABQ Physical) and 19.5+/-10.9 for occupational activities (FABQ Work). From multivariate analysis, the following factors were associated with patients' FABQ Phys and Work scores: having a GP with a high rating on the FABQ Phys (P=0.0001 and 0.02 for FABQ Phys and Work, respectively), no sport practice (vs. occasional: P=0.0003 and 0.03; vs. usual/competition: P=0.0001 and 0.004), disability score (Quebec) (P=0.0001 for both FABQ scores), and pain intensity (P=0.0012 and 0.0013). CONCLUSIONS: High levels of fear-avoidance beliefs occur early in LBP patients, and key messages on this topic should probably be delivered at a very early stage of the disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".