Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29984553›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2019

Beliefs about back pain and pain management behaviours, and their associations in the general population: A systematic review.

L Morton, M de Bruin, M Krajewska, D Whibley, G J Macfarlane

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of pain (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Back Pain: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Primary Investigation of Low Back Pain among Saudi Arabians: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

L MortonEpidemiology Group, University of Aberdeen, UK.
M de BruinHealth Psychology Group, University of Aberdeen, UK.
M KrajewskaDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany.
D WhibleyEpidemiology Group, University of Aberdeen, UK.
G J MacfarlaneEpidemiology Group, University of Aberdeen, UK.
University of Aberdeen · GBVersus Arthritis · GBZimmer Biomet (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 20665Medical Research Council 20665Versus Arthritis 20665
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous mass media campaigns have aimed to influence how people manage back pain, with mixed success. Campaigns should target beliefs which are related to the behaviours they aim to change. This systematic review brings together research that has measured the prevalence of beliefs about back pain in the general population and factors associated with these beliefs, including future pain-related outcomes. Five databases were searched up until April 2017. Quantitative studies which reported a measure of agreement with a belief about back pain, cross-sectional associations, or associations between beliefs and future outcomes were eligible. Eligibility was assessed and data extracted independently by two authors. Results were tabulated and narratively synthesized. Nineteen studies from 10 countries were eligible (median study n [IQR] = 990.5 [524.75-2387.5]). Beliefs were measured using eight questionnaires and 57 stand-alone items. Beliefs about back pain's negative consequences were common across countries and populations, whereas most samples did not hold fear-avoidance beliefs. Beliefs about back pain's consequences were associated with pain and disability, but only one study investigated this specific relationship prospectively. No studies investigated whether beliefs are associated with future pain management behaviours. Agreement with certain beliefs (e.g. about negative consequences) was associated with sociodemographic characteristics (e.g. older age) and poorer self-rated health. Interventions may benefit from targeting beliefs about the perceived negative consequences of back pain in these populations. However, future research should explore how beliefs prospectively influence the management of back pain. SIGNIFICANCE: This review brings together studies which have assessed the prevalence of beliefs about back pain, and factors associated with holding them. It highlights that whether or not these beliefs represent important determinants of how people manage pain remains unknown.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthHealth BehaviorPain ManagementBack PainFearHumansPerceptionSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID29984553
PMCPMC6492285
OpenAlexW2826193924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.