↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The impact of psychological factors on condition-specific, generic and individualized patient reported outcomes in low back pain
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0593-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ida Løchting, Andrew M. Garratt, Kjersti Storheim, Erik L. Werner, Margreth Grotle

Abstract

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). 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. 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. 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 87 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 25 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Psychology 9 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 22 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 February 2017.
All research outputs
#8,564,534
of 25,601,426 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#965
of 2,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,978
of 324,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#17
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,601,426 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,302 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,495 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.