Psychosocial variables and presence, severity and prognosis of plantar heel pain: A systematic review of cross‐sectional and prognostic associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Plantar heel pain (PHP) is often disabling, and persistent symptoms are common. Psychosocial variables are known to affect pain and disability but the association of these factors with PHP has yet to be established. The purpose of the present systematic review was to determine if psychosocial variables are associated with the presence, severity and prognosis of PHP. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature and qualitative synthesis was carried out. Electronic searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO and EMBASE were undertaken from the inception of the respective databases up to November 2017. Any study design incorporating measurements of psychosocial variables with participants with plantar heel pain were included. The quality of included articles was appraised using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Five articles from four studies were included in the review, with a total of 422 participants. Moderate-level evidence suggested a clinically unimportant association with the incidence of PHP and depression, anxiety and stress, and limited evidence suggested a clinically unimportant association with job dissatisfaction. Moderate-level evidence suggested that there may also be an association between depression, anxiety, stress and catastrophization and PHP pain, and between depression, anxiety, stress, catastrophization and kinesiophobia and PHP function. We also found moderate-level evidence that a psychological disorder may be associated with a poorer outcome to shockwave therapy. CONCLUSION: In light of this review, the association of psychosocial variables and plantar heel pain cannot be ruled out. Given recommendations to adopt an individualized and stratified approach to other musculoskeletal conditions, clinicians should remain vigilant to their presence.
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 | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".