The Prospective Prognostic Value of Biopsychosocial Indices of Sensitivity to Physical Activity Among People With Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many people living with musculoskeletal pain conditions experience a range of negative biopsychosocial responses to physical activity, referred to as increased sensitivity to physical activity (SPA), that may undermine successful rehabilitation. This exploratory study aims to provide the first prospective analysis of the potential prognostic value of 3 biopsychosocial indices of SPA in relation to rehabilitation outcomes. This study also aimed to shed light on the cross-sectional interrelationships between these 3 biopsychosocial indices of SPA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults with back pain were evaluated upon starting physical therapy and then again 3 months later. The initial testing session consisted of self-reported pain-related questionnaires and assessment of activity-related changes in pressure pain thresholds (SPA-Sensory), pain intensity ratings (SPA-Pain), and situational catastrophizing (SPA-Psych). The 3-month follow-up consisted of self-reported disability and pain questionnaires. Correlational and hierarchical linear regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 97 participants completed both the initial visit and 3-month follow-up. The SPA-Pain index and the SPA-Psych index were significantly intercorrelated, but neither were correlated with the SPA-Sensory index. The SPA-Sensory index was not correlated with outcomes. The SPA-Pain index was correlated only with cross-sectional disability and pain outcomes. The SPA-Psych index was the only SPA index significantly correlated with outcomes both cross-sectionally and at 3-month follow-up. After controlling for baseline pain/disability and pain catastrophizing, SPA-Psych was no longer a significant prognostic factor for pain, but remained a significant prognostic factor for disability at 3-month follow-up (β=0.272, t=2.674, P=0.008, R2 Δ=5.60%). DISCUSSION: This study highlights the importance of conceptualizing and measuring SPA as a biopsychosocial (rather than unidimensional) construct and points toward the added prognostic value of this construct. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".