Fear-avoidance beliefs about back pain in patients with subacute low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fear-avoidance beliefs of patients with subacute low back pain (LBP) considered at risk for chronic disabling LBP are not well known. The objectives of this cross-sectional descriptive survey, conducted in secondary care practice, were to assess fear-avoidance beliefs about back pain in patients with subacute LBP and to seek an association between physician or patient characteristics and level of fear-avoidance beliefs. A total of 286 rheumatologists completed a self-administered questionnaire assessing physicians' demographic, professional data, personal history of back pain, and back pain fear-avoidance beliefs (on the Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire [FABQ]) and 443 patients with sLBP completed one on pain, perceived handicap and disability (Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression questionnaire), and back pain beliefs (FABQ). Mean FABQ scores for rheumatologists for physical activities (FABQ Phys) and occupational activities (FABQ Work) were 9.2+/-4.4 (range 0-21) and 16.7+/-6.9 (range 2-37), respectively, and patient scores were 16.7+/-5.2 and 19.3+/-12.4, respectively. A total of 68% of patients and 10% of physicians had a high rating on the FABQ Phys (>14). Patients' fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activity were associated with low level of education (odds ratio [OR] 4.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.83-9.57), patients' perceived disability (OR 1.05; CI 1.03-1.07), and physicians' high FABQ Phys score (OR 5.92; CI 1.31-26.32). Here we show that fear-avoidance beliefs about back pain were high in patients with subacute LBP and their rheumatologists.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".