ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Back-Health Knowledge and Misconceptions Related to the Daily Life Activities of Secondary School Students.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High school students with better knowledge about back care have fewer problems, but conceptual errors can hinder the acquisition of essential knowledge necessary for developing healthy habits. This study analyzed secondary school students' declarative knowledge and misconceptions related to back care in daily activities. An exploratory cross-sectional study was conducted with 80 girls and 89 boys aged 14-18 years (M = 15.68, SD = 2.12). The Health Questionnaire on Back Care Knowledge in Activities of Daily Living was used to evaluate knowledge using the true answer model (TAM) and the misconception model (MM). Using the test-retest method, both models' reliability was confirmed (TAM = 0.75; MM = 0.77), while only a minimal measurement error was identified (TAM = -0.01; MM = -0.07). The average scores were 6.23 for the TAM and 2.29 for the MM. The results showed no significant differences in both models. The analysis indicated that students had the most accurate knowledge of the location and function of the spine, whereas misconceptions regarding anatomical understanding and body posture usage were common. An analysis of the results under Reassumption Theory emphasizes the significance of comprehending concepts such as load transmission and spinal stability to maintain back health, thus highlighting the need for improved education in these areas to address misconceptions and enhance overall back-care knowledge.
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.