Musculoskeletal science & practice · 2026
Which screening tool better explains presenteeism and health-related quality of life in musculoskeletal pain: The Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire or the Central Sensitization Inventory?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shiosaki Hiroshi, Kabayama Ryuga, Sawano Junpei, Miyaoka Koki, Ueda Yuto, Kondo Yu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain contributes substantially to productivity loss; however, presenteeism is not fully explained by pain intensity alone. Screening tools that capture broader risk profiles may better explain presenteeism and its relationship with health-related quality of life (HRQOL).
OBJECTIVES: To examine associations of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ) and the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) with presenteeism and HRQOL, and compare their explanatory utility.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Outpatients with musculoskeletal pain who were employed completed the Single-Item Presenteeism Question, EuroQol 5-Dimension, Numerical Rating Scale for pain intensity, and the short form of OMPSQ and CSI. Hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses were performed for presenteeism and HRQOL, adjusting for demographic characteristics and basic pain variables.
RESULTS: Data from 110 participants were analyzed (mean age 50.9 years; 52.7% women). The CSI increased explained variance for both presenteeism (ΔR2 = 0.057, p = 0.012) and HRQOL (ΔR2 = 0.056, p = 0.006), but these associations were attenuated after inclusion of the OMPSQ. In final models, the OMPSQ was independently associated with greater presenteeism (B = 0.857, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.218) and poor HRQOL (B = -0.003, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.366), while pain intensity remained negatively associated with HRQOL (B = -0.010, p = 0.012).
CONCLUSIONS: The OMPSQ showed greater explanatory utility than the CSI for both presenteeism and HRQOL, whereas the CSI provided limited additional value. Prospective studies are needed to determine whether these cross-sectional associations translate into prognostic value for future presenteeism.
OBJECTIVES: To examine associations of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ) and the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) with presenteeism and HRQOL, and compare their explanatory utility.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Outpatients with musculoskeletal pain who were employed completed the Single-Item Presenteeism Question, EuroQol 5-Dimension, Numerical Rating Scale for pain intensity, and the short form of OMPSQ and CSI. Hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses were performed for presenteeism and HRQOL, adjusting for demographic characteristics and basic pain variables.
RESULTS: Data from 110 participants were analyzed (mean age 50.9 years; 52.7% women). The CSI increased explained variance for both presenteeism (ΔR2 = 0.057, p = 0.012) and HRQOL (ΔR2 = 0.056, p = 0.006), but these associations were attenuated after inclusion of the OMPSQ. In final models, the OMPSQ was independently associated with greater presenteeism (B = 0.857, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.218) and poor HRQOL (B = -0.003, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.366), while pain intensity remained negatively associated with HRQOL (B = -0.010, p = 0.012).
CONCLUSIONS: The OMPSQ showed greater explanatory utility than the CSI for both presenteeism and HRQOL, whereas the CSI provided limited additional value. Prospective studies are needed to determine whether these cross-sectional associations translate into prognostic value for future presenteeism.