MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153358515 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20100131

Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Are Associated With Disability in Older American Adults With Low Back Pain

2011· article· en· W2153358515 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jaclyn Megan Sions, Gregory E. Hicks

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsFear of fallingLogistic regressionLow back painMedicinePhysical therapyExplained variationGerontologyPsychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although fear-avoidance beliefs (FABs) have been explored in younger adults and Spanish older adults, their relationships to measures of low back pain (LBP)-related disability, overall physical health, and falling have not been investigated in older American adults. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the association of FABs with self-reported disability, physical health, and falling among community-dwelling older adults with LBP in the United States. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. METHODS: Ninety-three community-dwelling men and women with current LBP were included in this analysis. Participants completed the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire physical activity subscale (FABQ-PA). The modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (mOSW) and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QUE) were used to measure self-reported disability, and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) score was used to assess physical health. Participants provided demographic information and information regarding LBP duration and intensity. Linear regression models were developed using the following dependent variables: mOSW, QUE, and SF-36 PCS scores. Logistic regression was used to determine the association between high FABs and falling. RESULTS: For each analysis, the FABQ-PA score independently explained 3% to 6% of the variance in the LBP-related disability score and 3% of the variance in the SF-36 PCS score. For all dependent variables, the strongest contributors to explained variance were pain intensity, assistive device use, and FABQ-PA score. High FABs were associated with falling. LIMITATIONS: Future investigations might seek a more diversified sample and utilize both qualitative and quantitative measures for assessing disability and physical health. CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity FABs are independently associated with self-reported disability and overall physical health in older American adults with LBP. High FABs may warrant balance and falls assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207