Biopsychosocial screening questionnaire for patients with low back pain: Preliminary report of utility in physiotherapy practice in Northern Ireland

Citation
Da. Hurley et al., Biopsychosocial screening questionnaire for patients with low back pain: Preliminary report of utility in physiotherapy practice in Northern Ireland, CLIN J PAIN, 16(3), 2000, pp. 214-228
Citations number
88
Categorie Soggetti
Neurology
Journal title
CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN
ISSN journal
07498047 → ACNP
Volume
16
Issue
3
Year of publication
2000
Pages
214 - 228
Database
ISI
SICI code
0749-8047(200009)16:3<214:BSQFPW>2.0.ZU;2-3
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the potential utility o f a new biopsychosocial screening questionnaire (Acute Low Back Pain Screen ing Questionnaire) by exploring the relation between it and several physica l risk factors and posttreatment outcomes so as to establish a cutoff point for the local population. The relation between the screening questionnaire and valid and reliable outcome measures of pain and functional disability was also explored. Design: Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies were conducted on patients referred for physiotherapy for low back pain to a large Healthcare Trust i n Northern Ireland. Before initial assessment, patients completed the scree ning questionnaire and outcome measures, were questioned about known physic al risk factors, and then received physiotherapy. At final discharge, the o utcome variables-the "number of treatments" and patient's current work stat us ("return to work [yes/no]")-were recorded, and patients recompleted the outcome measures. Patients: One hundred eighteen patients gave written informed consent to pa rticipate in this study. Results: Significant associations were detected between questionnaire score s and pretreatment "leisure time exercise," "analgesic medication use," and "subjective anesthesia"; posttreatment "return to work"; and "number of ph ysiotherapy treatments" as well as pain and functional disability measures. A cutoff "at-risk" score of 112 was calculated, which correctly classified 74% of patients who received more than six treatments and 80% of patients who failed to return to work at the end of treatment. Conclusions: The findings of this study provide preliminary evidence of the utility of this biopsychosocial screening questionnaire for future use in clinical intervention studies in the Northern Ireland National Health Servi ce. Further comparative investigations in other health care settings are wa rranted.