Rehabilitation Interventions for Fear-Avoidance Beliefs and Behaviors in Sudden Onset Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fear avoidance (FA) describes beliefs and behaviors related to avoiding movements or activities after a painful event. Fear avoidance is a prevalent issue that limits the recovery outcomes and social reintegration of burn survivors. However, as current literature focuses on chronic conditions, understanding the impact and treatment of FA within sudden onset musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions, specifically in the burn survivor population, is lacking. The purpose of this scoping review is to synthesize evidence-based rehabilitation interventions aimed at improving FA behaviors and beliefs after sudden onset MSK conditions and to provide suggestions for clinical application with the burn survivor population. Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were sourced from inception to May 2023. Monthly Google Scholar searches and hand-searching of included articles' reference lists were done to add additional relevant publications. Eligibility criteria included: (1) adults with sudden onset MSK condition, (2) intervention from a rehabilitation professional, and (3) FA as the primary outcome. Four authors performed data extraction using the TIDIER checklist. Seven intervention types were identified: (1) education; (2) exercise; (3) graded motor imagery; (4) manual therapy (MT); (5) multimodal-education with exercise; (6) multimodal-education with MT and exercise; and (7) multimodal-interactive gaming console with exercise. All intervention types, except MT, demonstrated significant decreases in FA. This review summarizes effective rehabilitation interventions to address FA while highlighting the role of rehabilitation professionals in improving function and alleviating potential disability stemming from FA despite physical recovery.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".