Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33846150›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Development of the Prevent for Work questionnaire (P4Wq) for assessment of musculoskeletal risk in the workplace: part 1-literature review and domains selection.

Francesco Langella, Steffan Wittrup McPhee Christensen, Thorvaldur Skuli Palsson, Morten Høgh, Nicolo Gagni, Pablo Bellosta-López, David Høyrup Christiansen, Mauro Delle Chiaie, Victor Domenéch-García, Venerina Johnston and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

14 authors at 9 institutions in 5 countries.

Francesco LangellaIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milano, Italy francesco.langella.md@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8639-8480
Steffan Wittrup McPhee ChristensenDepartment of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Thorvaldur Skuli PalssonDepartment of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-4418-0133
Morten HøghDepartment of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Nicolo GagniIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milano, Italy.
Pablo Bellosta-LópezDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad San Jorge, 50830 Villanueva de Gállego, Zaragoza, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4750-9077
David Høyrup ChristiansenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Mauro Delle ChiaieIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milano, Italy.
Victor Domenéch-GarcíaDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad San Jorge, 50830 Villanueva de Gállego, Zaragoza, Spain.
Venerina JohnstonSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Grace P Y SzetoSchool of Medical & Health Sciences, Tung Wah College, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Jorge Hugo VillafañeIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3239-7626
Pablo HerreroDepartment of Physiatry and Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Aragón, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9201-0120
Pedro BerjanoIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milano, Italy.
Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi · ITAalborg University · DKUniversidad San Jorge · ESAarhus University · DKDon Carlo Gnocchi Foundation · ITThe University of Queensland · AUTung Wah College · CNUniversidad de Zaragoza · ESUniversity College of Northern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aims to define appropriate domains and items for the development of a self-administered questionnaire to assess the risk of developing work-related musculoskeletal disorder (WMSD) and the risk of its progression to chronicity.

designLiterature review and survey study. SETTING AND

participantsA literature review and a two-round interview with 15 experts in musculoskeletal pain were performed to identify the available domains for WMSD assessment. INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOME: To ensure quality, only validated questionnaires were included for the Delphi process. A three-round Delphi method, with three round steps, was used to select the most pertinent and relevant domains and items.

resultsNine questionnaires were identified through the expert discussion and literature review, comprising 38 candidate domains and 504 items. In the first round of the Delphi group, 17 domains reached more than 70% agreement and were selected. In the second round, 10 domains were rejected, while 11 were selected to complete the pool of domains. In the third and final round, 89 items belonging to 28 domains were defined as significant to develop a WMSDs risk assessment questionnaire.

conclusionsNo specific risk assessment questionnaires for WMSDs were identified from the literature. WMSD risk of presence and chronicity can be defined by an assessment tool based on the biopsychosocial model and the fear-avoidance components of chronic pain. The present study provides the formulation and operationalisation of the constructs in domains and items needed for developing and validating the questionnaire.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal PainDelphi TechniqueFearHumansResearch DesignRisk AssessmentSurveys and Questionnairesback painhealth & safetymental healthmusculoskeletal disorderspathologyrisk management

Identifiers

PMID33846150
PMCPMC8048000
OpenAlexW3154567438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.