Dataset Information

Is undergraduate physiotherapy study a risk factor for low back pain? A prevalence study of LBP in physiotherapy students.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Following reports of high prevalence of low back pain (LBP) in young physiotherapists, we investigated whether LBP was a problem for undergraduate physiotherapy students. METHOD: Physiotherapy students enrolled in one Australian tertiary institution completed a validated self-administered questionnaire in April 2001, seeking information on LBP prevalence (lifetime, 12 month, one-month, one-week), and its risk factors. The survey incorporated the Nordic back questionnaire, questions on common risks for LBP, and purpose-built questions regarding educational exposures. Univariate logistic regression models were applied to test associations. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: 72% students responded. LBP prevalence was 69% (lifetime), 63% (12-month), 44% (one-month), 28% (one-week). The risk of LBP increased significantly for students once they completed first year. Being aged 20 or 21 years (final year students) was significantly associated with all measures of LBP, compared with the youngest students. Exposure to tertiary study of greater than two years was associated with lifetime, 12 month and one-month LBP prevalence. Spending more than 20 hours in the past month 'sitting looking down' was significantly associated with one-month LBP prevalence. Similar exposure to 'treating patients' was significantly associated with one-month and one-week LBP prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Physiotherapy students should be alerted to the likelihood of LBP and is potential causes during their training, so that they enter the workforce with reduced risk of LBP. The potential for other undergraduate students to suffer LBP should also be considered.

SUBMITTER: Nyland LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC270026 | biostudies-literature | 2003 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is undergraduate physiotherapy study a risk factor for low back pain? A prevalence study of LBP in physiotherapy students.

Nyland Leah Jane LJ Grimmer Karen Anne KA

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20031009

<h4>Background</h4>Following reports of high prevalence of low back pain (LBP) in young physiotherapists, we investigated whether LBP was a problem for undergraduate physiotherapy students.<h4>Method</h4>Physiotherapy students enrolled in one Australian tertiary institution completed a validated self-administered questionnaire in April 2001, seeking information on LBP prevalence (lifetime, 12 month, one-month, one-week), and its risk factors. The survey incorporated the Nordic back questionnaire ...[more]

PMID: 14536021

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aims of this study were to: (1) develop pain education materials in Nepali and (2) determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised clinical trial (RCT) of a pain education intervention using these materials in Nepal. DESIGN:A two-arm, parallel, assessor-blinded, feasibility RCT. SETTING:A rehabilitation hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. PARTICIPANTS:Forty Nepalese with non-specific low back pain (mean [SD] age 41 [14] years; 12 [30%] women). INTERVENTIONS:Eligible participants were randomised, by concealed, 1:1 allocation, to one of two groups: (1) a pain education intervention and (2) a guideline-based physiotherapy active control group intervention. Each intervention was delivered by a physiotherapist in a single, 1-hour, individualised treatment session. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcomes were related to feasibility: recruitment, retention and treatment adherence of participants, feasibility and blinding of outcome assessments, fidelity of treatment delivery, credibility of, and satisfaction with, treatment. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 1 week post-treatment. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Pain intensity, pain interference, pain catastrophising, sleep disturbance, resilience, global rating of change, depression and quality of life. Statistical analyses were conducted blind to group allocation. RESULTS:Forty participants were recruited. Thirty-eight participants (95%) completed the 1-week post-treatment assessment. Most primary outcomes surpassed the a priori thresholds for feasibility. Several findings have important implications for designing a full trial. Secondary analyses suggest clinical benefit of pain education over the control intervention, with larger decrease in pain intensity (mean difference=3.56 [95% CI 0.21 to 6.91]) and pain catastrophising (mean difference=6.16 [95% CI 0.59 to 11.72]) in the pain education group. Pain intensity would seem an appropriate outcome for a full clinical trial. One minor adverse event was reported. CONCLUSION:We conclude that a full RCT of pain education for back pain in Nepal is feasible and warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03387228; Results.

Project description:BACKGROUND CONTEXT:The US National Pain Strategy focused attention on high-impact chronic pain and its restrictions. Although many interventions have been studied for chronic low-back pain, results are typically reported for heterogeneous samples. To better understand chronic pain and target interventions to those who most need care, more granular classifications recognizing chronic pain's impact are needed. PURPOSE:To test whether chronic pain impact levels can be identified in chronic low-back pain clinical trial samples, examine the baseline patient mix across studies, and evaluate the construct validity of high-impact chronic pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING:Descriptive analyses using 12 large study datasets. PATIENT SAMPLES:Chronic low-back pain patients in nonsurgical, nonpharmacologic trials in the US, Canada, and UK. OUTCOME MEASURES:Preference-based health utilities from the SF-6D and EQ-5D, employment status and absenteeism. METHODS:We used two logistic regression models to predict whether patients had high-impact chronic pain and whether the remainder had low- or moderate-impact chronic pain. We developed these models using two datasets. Models with the best predictive power were used to impute impact levels for six other datasets. Stratified by these estimated chronic pain impact levels, we characterized the case mix of patients at baseline in each dataset, and summarized their health-utilities and work productivity. This study was funded by a National Center for Complementary and Integrative Medicine grant. The authors have no potential conflicts of interest. RESULTS:The logistic models had excellent predictive power to identify those with high-impact chronic pain. Although studies were all of chronic low-back pain patients, the baseline mix of patients varied widely. Across all datasets, utilities, and productivity were similar for those with high-impact chronic pain and worsened as chronic pain impact increased. CONCLUSIONS:There is a need to better categorize chronic pain patients to allow the targeting of optimal interventions for those with each level of chronic pain impact.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is common in children and adolescents, and it is becoming a public health concern. In recent years there has been a considerable increase in research studies that examine the prevalence of LBP in this population, but studies exhibit great variability in the prevalence rates reported. The purpose of this research was to examine, by means of a meta-analytic investigation, the prevalence rates of LBP in children and adolescents. METHODS: Studies were located from computerized databases (ISI Web of Knowledge, MedLine, PEDro, IME, LILACS, and CINAHL) and other sources. The search period extended to April 2011. To be included in the meta-analysis, studies had to report a prevalence rate (whether point, period or lifetime prevalence) of LBP in children and/or adolescents (? 18 years old). Two independent researchers coded the moderator variables of the studies, and extracted the prevalence rates. Separate meta-analyses were carried out for the different types of prevalence in order to avoid dependence problems. In each meta-analysis, a random-effects model was assumed to carry out the statistical analyses. RESULTS: A total of 59 articles fulfilled the selection criteria. The mean point prevalence obtained from 10 studies was 0.120 (95% CI: 0.09 and 0.159). The mean period prevalence at 12 months obtained from 13 studies was 0.336 (95% CI: 0.269 and 0.410), whereas the mean period prevalence at one week obtained from six studies was 0.177 (95% CI: 0.124 and 0.247). The mean lifetime prevalence obtained from 30 studies was 0.399 (95% CI: 0.342 and 0.459). Lifetime prevalence exhibited a positive, statistically significant relationship with the mean age of the participants in the samples and with the publication year of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: The most recent studies showed higher prevalence rates than the oldest ones, and studies with a better methodology exhibited higher lifetime prevalence rates than studies that were methodologically poor. Future studies should report more information regarding the definition of LBP and there is a need to improve the methodological quality of studies.

Dataset Information

Is undergraduate physiotherapy study a risk factor for low back pain? A prevalence study of LBP in physiotherapy students.

Publications

Is undergraduate physiotherapy study a risk factor for low back pain? A prevalence study of LBP in physiotherapy students.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure