Observational studyBMJ open2022
Beliefs about back pain and associations with clinical outcomes: a primary care cohort study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- People in Brazil hold unhelpful beliefs about low back pain: An online survey using the back pain attitudes questionnaire.Brazilian journal of physical therapy · 2026Article
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Serbian Version of the Back Beliefs Questionnaire in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Development and initial testing of a brief, generic self-reported disability questionnaire: The Universal Disability Index.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate associations between beliefs about low back pain (LBP) at baseline and pain intensity and disability at 2-week, 13-week and 52-week follow-up.
designObservational cohort study.
settingPrimary care private chiropractic clinics in Denmark.
participantsA total of 2734 adults consulting a chiropractor for a new episode of LBP, with follow-up data available from 71%, 61% and 52% of the participants at 2, 13 and 52 weeks, respectively. OUTCOME MEASURES: Beliefs about LBP were measured by the Back Belief Questionnaire (BBQ) before consulting the chiropractor. Pain (Numerical Rating Scale 0-10) and disability (the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) were measured at baseline and after 2, 13 and 52 weeks. Associations were explored using longitudinal linear mixed models estimating interactions between BBQ and time, and by estimating associations between single items of BBQ and 13-week outcomes.
resultsMore positive beliefs about LBP were weakly associated with a reduction in pain at 2 weeks (β interaction BBQ#Time=-0.02 (95% CI -0.04 to -0.001)), at 13 weeks (-0.03 (95% CI -0.05 to -0.01)) and at 52 weeks of follow-up (-0.03 (95% CI -0.05 to -0.01); p=0.003). For disability, the association was uncertain (p=0.7). The item 'Back trouble means periods of pain for the rest of one's life' had the strongest association with both reduction in pain (-0.29, 95% CI -0.4 to -0.19, p<0.001) and disability (-2.42, 95% CI -3.52 to -1.33, p<0.001) at 13-week follow-up.
conclusionPositive beliefs regarding LBP, measured by the BBQ, were associated with a reduction in pain intensity at both short-term and long-term follow-up. However, the association was weak, and the clinical relevance is therefore questionable. No clear association was demonstrated between beliefs and disability. This study did not show promise that back beliefs as measured by the BBQ were helpful for predicting or explaining the course of LBP in this setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.