Search

Although the Roland disability questionnaire (RDQ) is a commonly used questionnaire for patients with low back pain (LBP), several important issues remain understudied. The purposes of this study were to investigate the impact that several parameters (length of test-retest interval, interpretation of the global perceived effect (GPE) scores, methods to estimate standard error of measurement (SEM), intervention and baseline scores) have on various measurement properties, such as agreement (Limits of Agreement (LOA), SEMagreement), responsiveness (area under the ROC curve, sensitivity, specificity) and interpretability (optimal cut-off point, Minimal Detectable Change), of the RDQ. RDQ was administered four times to 212 patients with chronic non-specific LBP (first consultation (T-1), eligibility check (T0), randomization/start of treatment (T1) and end of treatment (T2)). They also completed a GPE scale at T2. To study the influence of length of test interval between T-1, T0 and T1, six time intervals were assessed. Analyses of the impact of parameters on responsiveness and interpretability were based on the GPE score and on RDQ score changes (T1 versus T2). Results revealed that agreement parameters decreased with increasing time interval between test-retest. They confirmed the influence of the interpretation of the GPE as well as of the method to calculate the SEM on the magnitude of the Minimal Detectable Change and ROC parameters. Baseline RDQ scores and the way to cluster patients with regard to baseline scores influenced mainly the optimal cut-off point and responsiveness parameters; intervention did not affect the magnitude of the Minimal Detectable Change.

Several treatment principles for the reduction of chronic low back pain associated disability have been postulated. To examine whether a combination of a physical training and operant-behavioral graded activity with problem solving training is cost-effective compared to either alone one year post-treatment, a full economic analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial was conducted. in total 172 patients with chronic disabling non-specific low back pain referred for rehabilitation treatment, were randomized to 10 weeks of aerobic training and muscle strengthening of back extensors (active physical treatment; APT), 10 weeks of gradual assumption of patient relevant activities based on operant-behavioral principles and problem solving training (graded activity Plus problem solving training; GAP), or APT combined with GAP (combination treatment; CT). Total costs, existing of direct health and non-health costs and indirect costs due to absence of paid work were Calculated by using cost diaries and treatment attendance lists. The Roland Disability Questionnaire was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness to reduce disability and the gain in quality adjusted life year (QALY) by using the EuroQol-5D. APT, followed by CT showed, although not significant, higher total costs than GAP. Reduction of disability and gain in QALY did not differ significantly between CT and the single treatment modalities. Based on the incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves CT is not cost-effective at all. However, GAP is cost-effective regarding the reduction of disability and gain in QALY, and to a lesser degree APT is more cost-effective than CT in reducing disability.

Bed rest has been shown to be an ineffective treatment for non-specific low back pain (LBP). Despite this, during a new episode of pain some patients still rely on bed rest. Which patients choose bed rest is however unknown. The objectives of the present study were, firstly, to assess characteristics of patients choosing bed rest in (sub)acute pain and secondly to study whether prolonged bed rest in the (sub)acute phase of pain will result in long term disability. A prospective longitudinal cohort study included 282 patients with non-specific LBP for less than 7 weeks. Main outcome measures were duration of bed rest (in three categories) and disability. Results showed that 33% of patients with (sub)acute LBP had bed rest, but only 8% stayed in bed for more than four days. An ordinal regression analysis revealed that behavioural factors (catastrophizing (OR = 1.05 per bed rest category p

Aim of investigation: To evaluate whether a perceived decline in the level of physical activity after the onset of pain (PAD) is more appropriate in the explanation of disability as compared to the actual level of physical activity (PAL) in patients with sub-acute back pain. Methods: Patients with 4–7 weeks of non-specific low back pain (LBP) participated in this study. Their habitual physical activity level before the back pain started (H-PAL), their actual level of physical activity (PAL) and their perceived decline in the level of physical activity after the onset of pain (PAD) were assessed. The association between these physical activity related variables and perceived disability (QBPDS), fear of movement/(re)injury (TSK), pain catastrophizing (PCS) and pain intensity (VAS) was examined. The role of PAD as a mediator in the association between fear of movement/(re)injury and disability was examined by three linear regression analyses. Results: 123 patients (66 male and 57 female) with a mean age of 44.1 years (SD = 10.3) participated in this study. PAD was significantly correlated with disability, fear of movement/(re)injury, pain catastrophizing and pain intensity. PAD and PAL appeared more important in the explanation of disability in the subgroup of patients who were physically active before their back pain started. Generally, PAD indeed mediated the association between fear of movement/(re)injury and disability. Conclusions: The perceived decline in physical activity, rather than the current physical activity itself is important in the evaluation of the impact of activity related changes on disability in low back pain.

Previous research supports the fear-avoidance model in explaining chronic low back pain (LBP) disability. The aims of the present study were to determine: (1) whether fear-avoidance model variables are associated already during acute stages of LBP and (2) whether (increases in) pain-related fear are associated with other patient characteristics routinely assessed by the General Practitioner (GP). General practice patients consulting because of a new episode of LBP completed questionnaires on pain-related fear, avoidance, pain and disability. A sample of 247 acute LBP patients (median duration of current episode was 5 days) was collected. Significant associations were found between pain intensity, pain-related fear, avoidance behaviour and disability, but correlations were generally modest. A strong association was found between pain and disability. Pain-related fear was slightly higher in patients reporting low job satisfaction and in those taking bedrest. These results suggest that the fear-avoidance model as it was developed and tested in chronic LBP, might not entirely apply to acute LBP patients. Future research should focus on the transition from acute to chronic LBP and the shifts that take place between fear-avoidance model associations.