Back Education Efficacy in Elementary Schoolchildren
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A control group-designed 1-year follow-up study involving 9 to 11-year-old schoolchildren who followed back education. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of a back education program, consisting of six sessions of 1 hour each, in elementary school. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In surveys among children and teenagers during the past few years, as many as half of all children in a community report a history of low back pain. Although several authors advocate the implementation of back education in elementary school, no guidelines exist and little is known about the efficacy of such a program. METHODS: A total of 198 children (subjected to back education) and 165 controls performed a practical test, evaluating the use of back care principles while sitting, taking off shoes, picking up a pen, and handling a load and a book bag. Post-tests were performed within 1 week after the intervention, after 3 months, and after 1 year. The week prevalence of back and neck pain was evaluated at these test moments in extended samples of intervention children (n = 347) and controls (n = 349). To evaluate habit changes, a limited group of intervention pupils (n = 38) and controls (n = 31) was additionally evaluated in a candid camera observation at the last post-test. RESULTS: At all post-tests intervention pupils scored significantly higher (P < 0.001) than controls for all practical test items. Candid camera evaluation scores were higher in the intervention group sample compared with the control group sample for four of the eight evaluated items. Following back education significantly decreased the week prevalence of back and neck pain. CONCLUSIONS: Back education in elementary schoolchildren is efficacious up to 1 year. The role of early back education in preventing back pain at the adult age merits further attention.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".