Open Access

The impact of psychological factors on condition-specific, generic and individualized patient reported outcomes in low back pain

  • Ida Løchting1, 2Email author,
  • Andrew M. Garratt3,
  • Kjersti Storheim1, 4,
  • Erik L. Werner5, 7 and
  • Margreth Grotle1, 6
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes201715:40

DOI: 10.1186/s12955-017-0593-0

Received: 20 May 2016

Accepted: 14 January 2017

Published: 21 February 2017

Abstract

Background

An individualized patient reported outcome (PRO) has recently been recommended within LBP research, but no study has evaluated this instrument with commonly applied PROs. Moreover, the impact of psychological factors has mostly been assessed for disease-specific instruments. The objective of this study was to assess the predictive value of illness perceptions, pain catastrophizing and psychological distress on 12 month outcomes assessed by specific, generic and individualized PROs recommended in low back pain (LBP).

Methods

Secondary analysis of patients with sub-acute or chronic LBP recruited for a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care who completed a self-administered questionnaire at baseline and 12 months. 12 month scores for the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the EuroQol (EQ-5D), and the Patient Generated Index (PGI) were dependent variables in hierarchical regression analysis. Independent variables included baseline scores for the Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire (Brief IPQ), Hopkins Symptom Check List (HSCL-25), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), health/clinical and sociodemographic variables.

Results

Of the 216 eligible patients included, 203 patients responded to the baseline questionnaire and 150 (74%) responded at 12 months. The mean age was 38.3 (SD 10.2) years and 57.6% were female. The Brief IPQ showed a statistically significant variation in the 12-months score of all the PROs, explaining 2.5% in RMDQ, 7.9% in EQ-5D, and 3.6% in PGI. Most of the explained variation for EQ-5D scores related to illness perceptions. The PCS explained 3.7% of the RMDQ and 2.5% in the EQ-5D scores. The HSCL-25 did not make a significant contribution.

Conclusion

Illness perceptions and pain catastrophizing were associated with 12-month outcomes as assessed by condition-specific, generic and individualized PROs. The Brief IPQ and PCS have relevance to applications in primary care that include interventions designed to enhance psychological aspects of health and where the contribution of such variables to outcomes is of interest. Further studies should assess whether the Brief IPQ perform similarly in LBP populations in other health care settings.

Keywords

Low back pain Patient reported outcomes Illness perceptions Individualized Patient generated index Psychological Quality of life

Background

The identification of key prognostic factors is an important research area in low back pain (LBP) [1, 2]. This includes psychological factors which being modifiable, have relevance to clinical settings and guidelines recommend their assessment when treating patients [3, 4]. The most widely explored psychological factors are distress, fear avoidance beliefs and pain catastrophizing [57]. However, a recent systematic review evaluating which psychological factors might be associated in the transition from acute to chronic LBP in primary care, concluded that these psychological factors show modest predictive ability on outcomes including disability, pain and work status [6]. Illness perceptions is another psychological construct that has received increasing attention in back pain research but few independent prospective studies have assessed its role as a predictor of scores for patient reported outcomes (PROs) [811]. One study that compared the predictive ability of 20 psychological constructs in LBP, including fear avoidance beliefs, pain catastrophizing, and distress found that illness perceptions was the best predictor of disability at six months [9]. Aspects of illness perceptions also best predicted outcome at five years in this patient group [11].

The impact of psychological factors has largely focused on disease-specific PRO instruments including the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) [5, 6]. Instruments assessing broader constructs including general health status and quality of life have received less attention, as reflected in their less frequent inclusion in reviews of the impact of psychological factors on LBP [5, 6]. Recent concerns have been raised that other types of outcomes which are important to back pain patients, are not part of the recommended outcome core set for back pain [1214]. Sleep, social factors, fatigue and emotional well-being are areas found to be more important to patients with LBP than currently recognized [1214]. This has led to the recommendation that an individualized measure of quality of life, the Patient Generated Index (PGI), should be included alongside the core set of outcome measures [13]. Individualized instruments allow the patient to select areas of importance to them. Hence their inclusion means that patients have the opportunity to include aspects of life that are not included in standardized instruments, but considered important in outcome assessment [15, 16]. PRO instruments that assess outcomes of importance to the individual patient complement clinical and health services evaluation and promote health outcomes more generally. It has also been argued that the absence of areas of less relevance reduces the level of ‘noise’ present in standardized instruments which can improve methodological aspects of outcomes, including responsiveness to change [17, 18].

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of illness perceptions, pain catastrophizing and psychological distress on recommended back pain PROs 12 months after an episode of non-specific LBP. The PROs included two of the most widely used instruments in patients with back pain, the RMDQ and the EQ-5D, and the recently recommended individualized PGI which has been validated in LBP [16].

Methods

Design and setting

This a-priori planned secondary analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial [19, 20], included 220 patients recruited between 2008–2012 from general practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists (PTs). The clinicians were randomly assigned to either provide a cognitive patient education intervention, based on the understanding of the physiology of pain or usual care. Treatment was provided once a week in one to one 30 min sessions for up to four consecutive weeks in the clinicians’ usual primary care settings, located in the greater Oslo area. We refer to the study protocol for further details on recruitment and treatment [19]. We followed recommendations and guidelines for reporting a multivariate prediction model where appropriate for this study [1, 21].

Data collection

Clinicians recruited patients with non-specific LBP lasting 4–52 weeks, aged 20–55 years old with a score of ≥ 4 on the RMDQ. Exclusion criteria were possible nerve root pain or severe pathology, “red flags” or demand for a specific treatment. Following informed consent, the baseline questionnaire was completed in the provider’s waiting room or at home. Patients received a 12 month follow-up postal questionnaire.

The study was approved by the Norwegian Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics East and the Data Inspectorate and followed the Helsinki Declaration.

Outcomes and psychological instruments

The self-completed questionnaire included the PRO and psychological instruments, numerical rating scale of back pain (0–10) and questions relating to age, sex, ethnicity (born in Norway- yes/no), education (≤12 years/> 12 years), employment (employed/student/unpaid work or unemployed/rehabilitation/sickleave), smoking (yes/no), co-morbidity (yes/no), BMI, previous LBP (yes/no).

PRO instruments included disability in daily activities assessed by the RMDQ, which has 24 yes/no items that sum to a score from 0–24, where 24 is the most severe back related disability [22]. The RMDQ has evidence for data quality, reliability and validity in Norwegian LBP patients [23].

General health status was assessed by the EQ-5D [24] 3-L version which is a utility instrument with five items that have three-point descriptive scales of no problem, some problems and severe problems. The EQ-5D index is based on utility weights from the general population and is scored from −0.59 to 1.0 were 1 is the best possible score. The EQ-5D has evidence for reliability and validity in Norwegian LBP patients [25].

Individual quality of life was assessed by the PGI completed in three stages [16, 26]. In the first stage, patients list up to five important areas in their life affected by their LBP. In the second, they rate the extent to which their LBP has affected them in each area and in the rest of their lives on a seven point scale from “the worst they can imagine” to “exactly as they would like it to be”. In the third stage they are asked to imagine that they can improve some or all of the areas with ten points to distribute across the areas that they would most like to improve. The PGI score from 0–100 represents the worst and best possible quality of life respectively. The PGI has evidence for reliability and validity in Norwegian patients with LBP [16].

Three psychological instruments were included as predictors. Illness perceptions was assessed by the Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire (Brief IPQ) [27] which has nine items comprising cognitive and emotional illness perceptions. The items have a 0–10 scale with endpoint descriptors. The items sum to give a score from 0 to 100 with higher scores representing a more threatening view of illness. The instrument has evidence for reliability and validity in Norway [28].

Psychological distress was assessed by the Hopkin’s Symptom Check List (HSCL-25), which has 25 items [29]. The HSCL-25 asks about symptoms during the last week and items have a four-point scale from “not at all” to “to a large extent”. Items sum to give a score from 0 to 4 where 4 is the most severe symptoms. The Norwegian HSCL-25 version has been used in several studies, including patients with LBP [3032], however evidence relating to reliability and validity in patients with LBP is lacking.

Pain catastrophizing was assessed by the 13-item Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) [33] which asks about past painful experiences and the degree to which they experienced this on a five-point scale from “not at all” to “all the time” (31). Items sum to give a score from 0 to 52 where 52 is the highest level of catastrophizing. The PCS has evidence for reliability and validity in Norwegian patients with LBP [34].

Statistical analysis

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis [35] was used to assess the contribution of baseline Brief IPQ, HSCL-25 and PCS scores to those for the 12 months RMDQ, EQ-5D and PGI scores, after controlling for baseline sociodemographic and health/clinical variables. Univariate analysis informed variable selection and hence the three models differ slightly. Variables that made a significant contribution at the p < 0.10 level to the dependent variables were included in the final multivariate regression analysis in addition to sex, age, type of treatment and type of clinician. Sample size requirements took into account the number of independent variables used (N > 50+ 8 m) [36]. The assumptions of regression analysis were assessed including normality, presence of outliers and no multicollinearity. Normal probability plots were examined and the correlation between the independent variables assessed [36]. Sociodemographic variables were entered in the first step, health status and clinical variables in the second, and each of the psychological instruments was entered in the third to fifth steps. PGI scores at follow-up are usually based on stage three points at follow-up administration. However, for purposes of intervention studies it is recommended that baseline points are used which reflect the patients original priorities for improvement [34]. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was conducted with this alternative method of scoring the PGI also as dependent variable. The 5% significance level was used.

SPSS version 21 was used for all the statistical analysis.

Results

Data collection

Of the 220 patients, four were excluded because they were retrospectively found not to meet the inclusion criteria. Of the 216 eligible patients, 203 patients responded to the baseline questionnaire and 150 (74%) at 12 months. The most frequent reason for loss at follow-up was lack of response to reminders by mail or telephone. Compared to responders, non- responders at 12 months had higher BMI (p < 0.01), a lower education level (p < 0.05) and a greater proportion received treatment from GPs compared to PTs (p < 0.05).

Table 1 shows the patients sociodemographic characteristics and mean scores for the PRO instruments. Table 2 shows the univariate analysis of the contribution of baseline variables to the three types of PROs at 12 months. There was no deviation from normality, evidence of outliers or multicollinearity in the multivariate analyses. Table 3 shows the results of the hierarchical multiple regressions analyses with the RMDQ as dependent variable at 12 months. Two of the three psychological instruments significantly contributed to explaining variation in RMDQ scores separately; 2.5% and 3.7% for the Brief IPQ and PCS respectively (Table 3, models 3–5). Health /clinical variables explained 12.2% of the variation (model 2). The model that explained the highest percentage of variation at 25.6% included the PCS, health/clinical and sociodemographic variables.
Table 1

Patient characteristics for patients responding to the baseline questionnaire (n = 203)

Variables

Independent variables

 Sex (n, %)

  Male

86 (42.4)

  Female

117 (57.6)

 Age years (mean, SD)

38.3 (10.2)

 Born in Norway (n,%)

  Yes

171 (84.7)

  No

31 (15.3)

 Clinical setting (n,%)

  Medical doctor

62 (30.5)

  Physiotherapist

141 (69.5)

 Type of treatment (n, %)

  Usual care

100 (49.3)

  Cognitive intervention

103 (50.7)

 Education level

  12 years or less

54 (26.7)

   > 12 years

148 (73.3)

 Employment status (n, %)

  Employed/student

122 (60.1)

  Unemployed/rehab/sickleave

81 (39.9)

 Smoking

  Yes

21 (10.3)

  No

182 (89.7)

 BMI (mean, SD)

25.5 (4.2)

 Previous LBP (n,%)

  Yes

173 (85.6)

  No

29 (14.4)

 Co-morbidity (n,%)

  Yes

111 (55.5)

  No

89 (44.5)

 Back pain, NRS (0–10)

5.1 (2.1)

 Brief-IPQ (mean, SD)a

52.5 (12.4)

 PCS (mean, SD)b

15.9 (9.2)

 HSCL-25 (mean, SD)c

1.6 (0.4)

Outcome variables

 RMDQ (mean, SD)d

9.3 (4.0)

 EQ-5D (mean, SD)e

0.6 (0.3)

 PGI (mean, SD)f

38.4 (14.8)

aBrief-IPQ (0–100); higher scores represent a more threatening view of the illness

bPCS (0–52); higher scores represent higher levels of catastrophizing

cHSCL-25 (1–4); higher scores represent more severe symptoms

dRMDQ (0–24); higher scores represent greater overall disability

eEQ-5D (−0.59 to 1.0); higher scores represent better health status

fPGI (0–100); higher scores represent better quality of life

Table 2

Univariate analysis of the contribution of baseline variables to three types of patient-reported outcomes; the diseases-specific RMDQ, the generic EQ-5D scores and the individualized PGI at 12 months

Variables

RMDQe 12 m

EQ-5Df 12 m

PGIg 12 m

(n = 147)

(n = 150)

(n = 137)

R2

βa

p- value

R2

β a

p- value

R2

βa

p- value

Sociodemographic

 Sex (women = 2)

.004

-.506

.433

.000

-.005

.912

.005

3.222

.421

 Age years

.000

-.002

.940

.000

-.001

.791

.000

.004

.982

 Ethnicity (Norwegian) (yes/no) (no = 2)

.040

2.118

.016

.023

-.105

.066

.009

−6.148

.264

 Education level (>12 years = 2)

.046

−1.863

.009

.049

.126

.006

.015

6.453

.148

 Employment status (employed/ unemployed) (unemployed =2)

.017

1.023

.115

.021

-.073

.079

.006

3.724

.356

 Smoking (yes/no) (yes = 2)

.020

1.780

.088

.014

-.098

.145

.004

−4.476

.491

Health/clinical

 BMI

.017

.121

.116

.009

-.006

.250

.016

-.696

.143

 Previous LBP (yes/no) (yes = 2)

.005

.764

.401

.002

-.035

.554

.000

-.224

.968

 Back pain (NRS) (0–10)

.042

.382

.013

.034

-.022

.024

.023

−1.711

.076

 Co-morbidity (yes/no) (yes = 2)

.000

.136

.833

.000

-.004

.928

.007

−3.789

.344

 Clinical setting (Medical Doctor/ Physio) (MD = 2)

.085

2.402

.000

.053

-.123

.005

.014

−5.915

.162

 Treatment (usual care/cognitive) (usual care = 2)

.008

-.697

.274

.002

.024

.552

.002

1.878

.635

Psychological

 Brief-IPQb (0–100)

.146

.118

.000

.185

-.009

.000

.068

-.483

.002

 HSCL-25c (1–4)

.055

2.065

.004

.062

-.143

.002

.025

−8.419

.063

 PCSd (0–52)

.148

.162

.000

.097

-.009

.000

.033

-.456

.034

Outcome variables

 RMDQe baseline (0–24)

.097

.301

.000

.060

-.015

.003

.004

-.386

.437

 EQ-5Df baseline (−0.59-1)

.097

−4.536

.000

.082

.272

.000

.021

12.589

.092

 PGIg baseline (0–100)

.013

-.030

.182

.006

.001

.391

.007

.134

.336

aUnstandardized beta

bBrief-IPQ; higher scores represent a more threatening view of the illness

cPCS; higher scores represent higher levels of catastrophizing

dHSCL-25; higher scores represent more severe symptoms

eRMDQ; higher scores represent greater overall disability

fEQ-5D; higher scores represent better health status

gPGI; higher scores represent better quality of life

Table 3

Final hierarchical linear regression analysis of the relationship between RMDQ on the psychological instrument scores, health, clinical and sociodemographic variables (n = 147)

 

R2

R2 Change

β a

95% CI for B

St. β

p-value

Variables

 Model 1: sociodemographicb

9.7%

9.7%

    

 Model 2: health/clinicalc

21.9%

12.2%

    

 Model 3: illness perceptionsd

24.4%

2.5%

    

  Brief-IPQ (0–100)

  

.060

.004 to.117

.195

.035

 Model 4: pain catastrophizinge

25.6%

3.7%

    

  PCS (0–52)

  

.094

.022 to.167

.224

.011

 Model 5: psychological distressf

22.0%

0.1%

    

  HSCL-25 (1–4)

  

.307

−1.305 to1.919

.035

.707

aUnstandardized Beta

bModel 1: sex, age, ethnicity, education and smoking

cModel 2: back pain (NRS), baseline RMDQ, baseline EQ-5D, clinical setting (GP or PT) and type of treatment (usual care or cognitive intervention) in addition to the sociodemographic variables (model 1)

dModel 3: illness perceptions by the Brief IPQ (sum score) in addition to the variables in model 1 and 2

eModel 4: pain catastrophizing by the PCS (sum score) in addition to the variables in model 1 and 2

fModel 5:) psychological distress by the HSCL-25 (sum score) in addition to the variables in model 1 and 2

The PCS and the Brief IPQ also made significant contributions to explaining variation in EQ-5D scores separately; 2.5% for the PCS and 7.9% for the Brief IPQ (Table 4, models 3–5). Independently, Brief IPQ scores (7.9%) explained about the same amount of variation in EQ-5D as the sociodemographic (7.5%) and health/clinical (7.2%) variables. The model that explained the highest percentage of variation at 22.6% included the Brief IPQ, health/ clinical and sociodemographic variables.
Table 4

Final hierarchical linear regression analysis of the relationship between EQ-5D and the psychological scales adjusted for sociodemographic and health/clinical variables (n = 150)

 

R2

R2 change

β a

95% CI for B

St. β

p-value

Variables

 Model 1: sociodemographicb

7.5%

7.5%

    

 Model 2: health/clinicalc

14.7%

7.2%

    

 Model 3: illness perceptionsd

22.6%

7.9%

    

  Brief-IPQ (0–100)

  

-.007

-.011 to -.003

-.345

.000

 Model 4: pain catastrophizinge

17.2%

2.5%

    

  PCS (0–52)

  

-.005

-.010 to.000

-.184

.045

 Model 5: psychological distressf

15.3%

0.6%

    

  HSCL-25 (1–4)

  

-.056

-.166 to.054

-.098

.316

a Unstandardized Beta

bModel 1: sex, age, ethnicity, education and employment

cModel 2: back pain (NRS 1–10), baseline RMDQ, baseline EQ-5D, clinical setting (GP or PT) and type of treatment (usual care or cognitive intervention) in addition to the sociodemographic variables in model 1

dModel 3: illness perceptions by the Brief IPQ (sum score) in addition to the variables in model 1 and 2

eModel 4: pain catastrophizing by the PCS (sum score) in addition to the variables in model 1 and 2

fModel 5:) psychological distress by the HSCL-25 (sum score) in addition to the variables in model 1 and 2

The Brief IPQ was the only psychological instrument that explained a statistically significant component (3.6%) of the variation in the PGI, which was similar to that for the health status and clinical variables (Table 5). The model that explained the highest percentage of variation at 8.1% included the Brief IPQ, health/clinical and sociodemographic variables. The use of PGI baseline stage three points did not affect the results (not shown).
Table 5

Final hierarchical linear regression analysis of the relationship between PGI and the psychological scales adjusted for sociodemographic and health/clinical variables (n = 137)

 

R2

R2 Change

βa

95% CI for B

St. β

p-value

Variables

 Model 1: sociodemographicb

0.5%

0.5%

    

 Model 2: health/clinicalc

4.6%

4.1%

    

 Model 3: illness perceptionsd

8.1%

3.6%

    

  Brief-IPQ (0–100)

  

-.426

-.819 to -.032

-.230

.034

 Model 4: pain catastrophizinge

5.9%

1.3%

    

  PCS (0–52)

  

-.325

-.829 to .180

-.129

.205

 Model 5: psychological distressf

5.6%

1.1%

    

  HSCL-25 (1–4)

  

−6.306

−17.126 to 4.514

-.119

.138

aUnstandardized Beta

bModel 1: sex, age

cModel 2: back pain, baseline PGI, baseline EQ-5D, clinical setting (GP or PT) and type of treatment (usual care or cognitive intervention) in addition to the sociodemographic variables (model 1)

dModel 3: illness perceptions by the Brief IPQ (sum score) in addition to the variables in model 1 and 2

eModel 4: pain catastrophizing by the PCS (sum score) in addition to the variables in model 1 and 2

fModel 5:) psychological distress by the HSCL-25 (sum score) in addition to the variables in model 1 and 2

The HSCL-25 did not make a significant contribution in any of the multivariate analyses (Tables 3, 4 and 5).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of illness perceptions, pain catastrophizing and psychological distress on PROs recommended for back pain 12 months after an episode of non-specific LBP. Illness perceptions at baseline predicted 12 months scores for the three types of PROs: the disease-specific RMDQ, the generic EQ-5D and the individualised PGI. Pain catastrophizing predicted 12 months RMDQ and EQ-5D scores, but not those for the PGI. Finally, psychological distress did not show any significant association with any of the 12 month PRO scores. In prognostic LBP studies, baseline factors typically account for around 30% of the variation in outcome [37], with psychological aspects, explaining less than 5% in disease-specific outcomes including the RMDQ and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) [9, 10, 30]. The current findings for the impact of pain catastrophizing and illness perceptions on the RMDQ are in agreement with this literature.

The strongest association in the current study was between illness perceptions and 12-months scores of EQ-5D. Illness perceptions explained nearly 8% of the variation in 12-months EQ-5D. Moreover, illness perceptions was the only psychological factor that showed a significant impact on health-related quality of life, as assessed by the individualized PGI (3.6%). There are few published studies, which have evaluated the impact of illness perceptions on quality of life instruments. With the exception of one study that included the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) as an outcome measure (10) and found that illness perceptions explained up to 14% of the variance, the proportion of variance explained by illness perceptions in the current study as assessed by the EQ-5D (8%) is greater than previously reported [9]. Our results are in agreement with previous studies showing that illness perceptions have been found to be associated with health outcomes of disability, pain and general health [9, 10]. Minor differences might be explained by the fact that the current study included the Brief IPQ with a sum scale of illness perceptions, whereas the other studies in LBP have used longer versions, without a sum scale [38]. The greater proportion of variation explained by illness perceptions when the EQ-5D was the dependent variable might be due to the broader focus of the EQ-5D as compared to the RMDQ with its focus on back-related disability. It would be interesting to consider the role of illness perceptions and pain catastrophizing in explaining other back-related and generic PROs.

Baseline PCS scores were significantly associated with disability as assessed by the RMDQ (3.7%) and general health as assessed by the EQ-5D (2.5%) at 12 months. A recent systematic review evaluating catastrophizing as a prognostic factor in LBP concluded that there is some evidence that catastrophizing as a coping strategy might lead to delayed recovery but that the influence of catastrophizing in patients with LBP is not fully established [39].

Distress did not explain any significant variation in the outcome measures included in our study. Previous systematic reviews that included psychological factors as predictors of outcomes in prospective cohorts of patients with LBP or musculoskeletal pain, point to an association between distress and PROs [5, 40]. The studies included in the reviews had outcomes relating to symptom satisfaction, the RMDQ and pain. A recent review found evidence for the predictive ability of distress in two of seven studies in primary care [6]. Different measures used to assess these concepts as well as different patient populations and PRO instruments may explain the variation across studies.

The independent variables included in the current study reflect the bio-psycho-social model where potentially important sociodemographic, health and clinical variables were included in the univariate analysis. The variables included in the final model explained between 22.6% and 25.6% for the EQ-5D and RMDQ respectively, which is consistent with other prospective studies [37]. There are no published studies that have examined the association between the independent variables included in this study and individualised outcomes as assessed by instruments such as the PGI. In the current study, only 5 of the 18 variables included in the univariate analysis were significantly associated with PGI scores at the 10% level and only illness perceptions explained statistically significant variation at the 5% level in the final model. The final model only explained 8.1% of the variation. Different options are available for administering the PGI at baseline and follow-up. The current study followed the latest recommendations by one of the developers including a closed format for the areas in stage one [41]. Following recent recommendations [41], a sensitivity analysis was conducted with the points given in stage three at baseline included at follow-up. The sensitivity analysis did not influence the results. The reliability and validity of the instruments included as dependent and independent variables places an upper limit on the size of the associations expected in both the current and previous studies. The Brief IPQ and PCS have evidence for these measurement properties in this group of patients [28, 34], but evidence is lacking for the HSCL-25 in Norwegian back pain patients. However, these considerations are relatively minor given the relatively low level of associations expected based on existing research of psychological prognostic factors [9, 10, 30].

Study strengths and limitations

Study strengths include the a-priori secondary analysis of a cluster RCT with the inclusion of the three main types of PROs – specific, generic and individualized – recommended for use in LBP research. It has been argued that prognostic variables should be evaluated in patients who have received the same treatment or have been participants in a randomized trial [42]. The inclusion of both sociodemographic, health/clinical and psychological variables reflects the biopsychosocial model.

Respondent burden meant that only a selection of self-completed instruments assessing psychological aspects and outcomes could be included. The aims of the intervention study informed instrument selection including primary and secondary outcomes [19]. Instruments assessing other psychological aspects that are relevant to back pain patients including coping, fear avoidance beliefs and self-efficacy were not included. Moreover, the prediction models in this study were the ones that best suited our data, hence testing and validating the predictive performance in other samples is necessary [43]. Future studies should evaluate the psychometric properties of the HSCL-25 in patients with LBP. Finally, there was a loss to follow up of approximately 25%, which follows previous research in back pain [5, 6].

Conclusions

Illness perceptions and pain catastrophizing predicted 12-months PRO scores including those for two of the most widely applied specific and generic instruments, the RMDQ and EQ-5D, as well as individualized outcomes as assessed by the PGI. The latter has had considerably less application but is recommended for back pain research as a means of addressing the limitations of current PRO instruments [13]. Differences were found for the type of outcomes and the amount of variation explained by the psychological instrument scores with illness perceptions making the largest overall contribution. Further studies are needed to assess whether these findings are replicated in other groups of patients with LBP. Future studies should consider the inclusion of illness perceptions as a potential determinant of health outcome as assessed by recommended PRO instruments in addition to more traditional psychological aspects.

Abbreviations

Brief IPQ: 

The brief illness perceptions questionnaire

EQ-5D: 

The EuroQol

GPs: 

General practitioners

HSCL-25: 

The Hopkin’s symptom check list

LBP: 

Low back pain

PCS: 

Pain catastrophizing scale

PGI: 

Patient generated index

PROs: 

Patient-reported outcomes

PTs: 

Physiotherapists

RMDQ: 

Roland Morris disability questionnaire

SD: 

Standard deviations

SF-36: 

Short form health survey

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank the clinicians and the patients for participating in this study.

We also thank Milada Cvancarova Småstuen for statistical advice.

Funding

This project received funding from The Research Council of Norway and the Norwegian Medical Association’s foundation for quality improvement and patient safety.

Availability of data and materials

Data supporting our conclusions can be found at the Communication- and Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Disorders (FORMI), Oslo University Hospital & University of Oslo, Ullevaal, P.O. Box 4950 Nydalen, 0424 Oslo.

Authors’ contributions

IL contributed in the data collection and drafted the manuscript. AMG, MG, EW and KS revised the manuscript critically. IL, AMG and MG participated in the statistical analysis. The authors have read and provided approval for the final content of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All patients included in this study provided written informed consent to participate.

The study was approved by the Norwegian Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics East and the Data Inspectorate and followed the Helsinki Declaration.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Communication- and Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Disorders (FORMI), Oslo University Hospital & University of Oslo
(2)
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo
(3)
Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health
(4)
Department of Health Sciences, University of Oslo
(5)
Research Unit for General Practice, Uni Research, Uni Health
(6)
Oslo and Akershus University college, Faculty of Health Science
(7)
Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, Department of General Practice, University of Oslo

References

  1. Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, Cote P, Bombardier C. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:280–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Hemingway H, Croft P, Perel P, Hayden JA, Abrams K, Timmis A, et al. Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 1: a framework for researching clinical outcomes. BMJ. 2013;346:e5595.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, Hildebrandt J, Klaber-Moffett J, Kovacs F, et al. Chapter 4. European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2006;15 Suppl 2:S192–300.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Lærum E, Brox JI, Storheim K. Korsryggsmerter- med og uten nerverotaffeksjon. Nasjonale kliniske retningslinjer. FORMI. 2007. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
  5. Pincus T, Burton AK, Vogel S, Field AP. A systematic review of psychological factors as predictors of chronicity/disability in prospective cohorts of low back pain. Spine. 2002;27:E109–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ramond A, Bouton C, Richard I, Roquelaure Y, Baufreton C, Legrand E, et al. Psychosocial risk factors for chronic low back pain in primary care--a systematic review. Fam Pract. 2011;28:12–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Moore JE. Chronic low back pain and psychosocial issues. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2010;21:801–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Foster NE, Bishop A, Thomas E, Main C, Horne R, Weinman J, et al. Illness perceptions of low back pain patients in primary care: what are they, do they change and are they associated with outcome? PAIN. 2008;136:177–87.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Foster NE, Thomas E, Bishop A, Dunn KM, Main CJ. Distinctiveness of psychological obstacles to recovery in low back pain patients in primary care. Pain. 2010;148:398–406.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Glattacker M, Heyduck K, Meffert C. Illness beliefs and treatment beliefs as predictors of short-term and medium-term outcome in chronic back pain. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45:268–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell P, Foster NE, Thomas E, Dunn KM. Prognostic indicators of low back pain in primary care: five-year prospective study. J Pain. 2013;14:873–83.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Hush JM, Refshauge K, Sullivan G, De SL, Maher CG, McAuley JH. Recovery: What does this mean to patients with low back pain? Arthritis Rheum. 2008;61:124–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Hush JM, Kamper SJ, Stanton TR, Ostelo R, Refshauge KM. Standardized measurement of recovery from nonspecific back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:849–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Froud R, Patterson S, Eldridge S, Seale C, Pincus T, Rajendran D, et al. A systematic review and meta-synthesis of the impact of low back pain on people’s lives. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:50.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Klokkerud M, Grotle M, Loechting I, Kjeken I, Hagen KB, Garratt AM. Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Patient Generated Index in patients with rheumatic diseases participating in rehabilitation or self-management programs. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013;52:924–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Lochting I, Grotle M, Storheim K, Werner EL, Garratt AM. Individualized quality of life in patients with low back pain: Reliability and validity of the patient generated index. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46:781–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Martin F, Camfield L, Rodham K, Kliempt P, Ruta D. Twelve years’ experience with the Patient Generated Index (PGI) of quality of life: a graded structured review. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:705–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Tugwell P, Bombardier C, Buchanan W, Goldsmith C, Grace E, Benett KJ. Mehotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis- impact on quality of life assessed by traditional standard- item and individualized patient preference health- status questionnaires. Arch Intern Med. 1990;150:59–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Werner EL, Storheim K, Lochting I, Grotle M. The COPE LBP trial: cognitive patient education for low back pain--a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:33.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Werner EL, Storheim K, Lochting I, Wisloff T, Grotle M. Cognitive patient education for low back pain in primary care: a cluster randomized controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41:455–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Ioannidis JP, Macaskill P, Steyerberg EW, et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:W1–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine. 2000;25:3115–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian versions of the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability index. J Rehabil Med. 2003;35:241–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T, Hofoss D, Nygaard ØP. Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J. 2005;14:1000–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ruta DA, Garratt AM, Leng M, Russell IT, MacDonald LM. A new approach to the measurement of quality of life. The Patient-Generated Index. Med Care. 1994;32:1109–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Broadbent E, Petrie KJ, Main J, Weinman J. The brief illness perception questionnaire. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:631–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Loechting I, Garratt AM, Storheim K, Werner EL, Grotle M. Evaluation of the brief illness perception questionnaire in sub-acute and chronic low back pain patients: data quality, reliability and validity. J Pain Relief. 2013;2:122. doi:10.4172/2167-0846.1000122.Google Scholar
  29. Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Rickels K, Uhlenhuth EH, Covi L. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): a self-report symptom inventory. Behav Sci. 1974;19:1–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Grotle MF, Vollestad NK, Veierod MB, Brox JI. Fear-avoidance beliefs and distress in relation to disability in acute and chronic low back pain. Pain. 2004;112:343–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sandanger I, Moum T, Ingebrigtsen G, Dalgard OS, Sorensen T, Bruusgaard D. Concordance between symptom screening and diagnostic procedure: the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview I. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1998;33:345–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Reme SE, Hagen EM, Eriksen HR. Expectations, perceptions, and physiotherapy predict prolonged sick leave in subacute low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:139.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Sullivan MJL, Bishop SP, Pivik J. The pain catastrophing scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:524–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Fernandes L, Storheim K, Lochting I, Grotle M. Cross-cultural adaption and validation of the Norwegian pain catastrophizing scale in patients with low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:111.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Pallant J. SPSS survival manual. A step by step guide to data analysing using IBM SPSS. 5th ed. England: Open University Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  36. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson Education; 2013.Google Scholar
  37. Pincus T, Santos R, Breen A, Burton AK, Underwood M. A review and proposal for a core set of factors for prospective cohorts. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:14–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Moss-Morris R, Weinman J, Petrie KJ, Horne R, Cameron LD, Buick D. The revised illness perception questionnaire (IPQ-R). Psychol Health. 2002;17:1–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Wertli MM, Eugster R, Held U, Steurer J, Kofmehl R, Weiser S. Catastrophizing-a prognostic factor for outcome in patients with low back pain: a systematic review. Spine J. 2014;14:2639–57.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mallen CD, Peat G, Thomas E, Dunn KM, Croft PR. Prognostic factors for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57:655–61.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Garratt AM. Evaluation of the stages of completion and scoring of the Patient Generated Index (PGI) in patients with rheumatic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:2625–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Altman DG. Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ. 2001;323:224–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Steyerberg EW, Moons KG, van der Windt DA, Hayden JA, Perel P, Schroter S, et al. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001381.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement