Prevalence and Correlates of Low Back Pain in Primary Care: What Are the Contributing Factors in a Rapidly Developing Country
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to determine the prevalence of low back pain (LBP) in the primary care setting with emphasis on the socio-demographic contributing factors and impact of LBP on lifestyle habits. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: LBP is one of the most common medical conditions seen in the Primary Health Care Clinic. METHODS: A representative sample of 2,600 patients were approached and 1,829 subjects agreed to participate in this study (70.0%). Data on socio-demographic characteristics, life style habits and type of treatment were collected through a questionnaire. RESULTS: The prevalence of LBP in the study sample was 56.5% (95% confidence interval, 54.2-58.8). LBP was more prevalent among women (53.9%) compared to men (46.1%). There was significant difference between male and female patients of LBP in terms of ethnicity (p<0.001), marital status (p=0.010), occupation (p<0.001), monthly household income (p=0.004), and cigarette/sheesha smokers (p<0.001). The percentages of different aspects of functional disabilities were statistically significantly higher among females compared to male patients with LBP. Almost a quarter of female patients with LBP (26%) and 18% male patients with LBP reported pain in the arms and legs (p=0.002). In addition, gastrointestinal complaints such as abdominal pain and food intolerance were significantly higher among female patients with LBP as compared to males (31% vs. 24.6%, p=0.018; and 25% vs. 18%, p=0.008, respectively). Complaints about headache and fainting were also significantly higher among female patients as compared to male LBP patients (43% vs. 36%, p=0.029; and 26% vs. 20%, p=0.016, respectively). The multivariate logistic regression revealed that being female, prolonged standing, prolonged sitting, heavy weight lifting, weakness in the legs, regular exercise, and cigarette/sheesh a smoking had a significant effect on the presence of LBP. CONCLUSIONS: LBP is highly prevalent among both genders and in older age. Also, weakness in the legs, smoking, prolonged standing and sitting had a significant effect on LBP. Furthermore, the current study findings support the fact that LBP continues to be an important clinical, social and economic, burden and a public health problem affecting the population of the entire world.
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 | 0.002 | 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".