A cross-sectional study of associations between kinesiophobia, pain, disability, and quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a significant health problem condition due to high prevalence among the general population. Emotions and physical factors are believed to play a role in chronic low back pain. Kinesiophobia is one of the most extreme forms of fear of pain due to movement or re-injury. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between kinesiophobia and pain intensity, disability and quality of life in people with chronic low back pain. METHODS: The study included 132 individuals with chronic back pain, with ages between 18 and 65 years old. Kinesiophobia was assessed using the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, pain intensity was measured using the Numeric Rating Scale with a cut-off more than 3 for inclusion in the study, disability was assessed using the Roland Morris questionnaire, quality of pain was assessed using the McGill questionnaire, and quality of life was assessed using the Quality of Life questionnaire SF-36. RESULTS: The results are statistically significant, but with weak associations were found between kinesiophobia and pain intensity (r = 0.187), quality of pain (sensory, r = 0.266; affective, r = - 0.174; and total r = 0.275), disability (r = 0.399) and physical quality of life (emotional r = - 0.414). CONCLUSION: Kinesiophobia is an important outcome to assess in patients with chronic low back pain. The results suggest that correlations between kinesiophobia and disability and quality of life are statistically significant.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".