ArticleBMC public health2026
What do the general public believe about back pain? A scoping review of population-based studies.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- PRIME - A multilevel intervention for low back pain management in primary care: Protocol for an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 1 cluster randomized controlled trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026Article
- What do the general public believe about back pain? A scoping review of population-based studies.BMC public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Misconceptions about back pain are reported to be common among the general public. We aimed to identify evidence and gaps regarding the general public’s beliefs about back pain from population-based studies across the world. We systematically searched CINAHL, CENTRAL, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception until September 9, 2024 to identify population-based studies that quantitatively assessed beliefs about back pain. Twelve studies involving 22,903 participants from Australasia, Europe, North America, and the United Kingdom were included. These studies utilised five questionnaires and 27 study-specific statements to assess beliefs. Included studies investigated 90 discrete belief statements. A substantial proportion of the general public hold incorrect beliefs including that most back pain is caused by specific conditions or injuries (47.3%–58.5%), back pain rarely resolves (39.8%–74.2%), rest is helpful for recovery (20.4%–76.5%), staying active is unsafe or unhelpful (13.4%–71.1%), healthcare is always needed (53.7%–84.8%), imaging is usually informative (44.6%–70.6%), and simple painkillers are usually insufficient (67.4%–76.1%). Research investigating population-level beliefs about back pain has to date been restricted to high-income countries. Most included studies focused on beliefs about imaging and self-care, with limited attention to contemporary issues such as unsafe or unproven care and indicators to seek healthcare for back pain. Given the potential for incorrect beliefs to worsen outcomes for back pain, our findings underscore the need for improved measurement tools, tailored interventions, and policies that consider widespread misconceptions.
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.