Hong Kong physiotherapy journal : official publication of the Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association Limited = Wu li chih liao · 2015
Catastrophising, pain, and disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain.
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.
Ogunlana Michael Opeoluwa, Odole Adesola Christiana, Adejumo Adebayo, Odunaiya Nse
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Attention has been drawn to examining the contributions of "catastrophising" to the prediction of pain and disability in individuals with low back pain (LBP).
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the proportion of patients with LBP who engaged in catastrophic thinking about pain and its association with pain intensity and disability. We also investigated the components of pain catastrophising that is predictive of disability.
METHODS: A total of 275 participants with nonspecific LBP completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, the quadruple visual analog scale, and the Revised Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (RODQ). The associations among pain intensity, disability, and catastrophising were investigated using t test. The components of catastrophising that best predicts disability were investigated using multiple linear regressions, and the level of significance was set at 0.05.
RESULTS: The majority (85.5%) of the participants had LBP for more than 6 weeks, with 45.5% of the participants having moderate disability and 52.7% being high catastrophisers. High catastrophisers to pain had a significantly higher rating of pain intensity (p < 0.001) and higher score on the RODQ than low catastrophisers to pain. The main components of catastrophising that predicts disability were magnification (p < 0.001) and rumination (p = 0.006).
CONCLUSION: Clinicians should screen patients with nonspecific LBP for a heightened level of catastrophic thinking and endeavour to manage such when present.
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the proportion of patients with LBP who engaged in catastrophic thinking about pain and its association with pain intensity and disability. We also investigated the components of pain catastrophising that is predictive of disability.
METHODS: A total of 275 participants with nonspecific LBP completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, the quadruple visual analog scale, and the Revised Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (RODQ). The associations among pain intensity, disability, and catastrophising were investigated using t test. The components of catastrophising that best predicts disability were investigated using multiple linear regressions, and the level of significance was set at 0.05.
RESULTS: The majority (85.5%) of the participants had LBP for more than 6 weeks, with 45.5% of the participants having moderate disability and 52.7% being high catastrophisers. High catastrophisers to pain had a significantly higher rating of pain intensity (p < 0.001) and higher score on the RODQ than low catastrophisers to pain. The main components of catastrophising that predicts disability were magnification (p < 0.001) and rumination (p = 0.006).
CONCLUSION: Clinicians should screen patients with nonspecific LBP for a heightened level of catastrophic thinking and endeavour to manage such when present.