Cited by 1,052Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment

Hill, Jonathan C., Dunn, Kate M., Lewis, Martyn, Mullis, Ricky, Main, Chris J., Foster, Nadine E., Hay, Elaine M.·2008·Arthritis Care & Research

Abstract

Objective: To develop and validate a tool that screens for back pain prognostic indicators relevant to initial decision making in primary care. Methods: The setting was UK primary care adults with nonspecific back pain. Constructs that were independent prognostic indicators for persistence were identified from secondary analysis of 2 existing cohorts and published literature. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis identified single screening questions for relevant constructs. Psychometric properties of the tool, including concurrent and discriminant validity, internal consistency, and repeatability, were assessed within a new development sample (n = 131) and tool score cutoffs were established to enable allocation to 3 subgroups (low, medium, and high risk). Predictive and external validity were evaluated within an independent external sample (n = 500). Results: The tool included 9 items: referred leg pain, comorbid pain, disability (2 items), bothersomeness, catastrophizing, fear, anxiety, and depression. The latter 5 items were identified as a psychosocial subscale. The tool demonstrated good reliability and validity and was acceptable to patients and clinicians. Patients scoring 0–3 were classified as low risk, and those scoring 4 or 5 on a psychosocial subscale were classified as high risk. The remainder were classified as medium risk. Conclusion: We validated a brief screening tool, which is a promising instrument for identifying subgroups of patients to guide the provision of early secondary prevention in primary care. Further work will establish whether allocation to treatment subgroups using the tool, linked with targeting treatment appropriately, improves patient outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/art.23563

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hill, J. C., Dunn, K. M., Lewis, M., Mullis, R., Main, C. J., Foster, N. E., & Hay, E. M.
Affiliations
Keele University (GB)
Venue
Arthritis Care & Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-04-25
Volume
59
Issue
5
Pages
632-641
ISSN
  • 0893-7524 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-0123
OpenAlex
W2067435956
Cited by
1,052
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 96 · 2021: 105 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 80 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 54 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 26
FWCI
15.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Arthritis Care & Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0707-10131, PC6/CSA04/03)
  • Keele University
  • Versus Arthritis (13413)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
non-specific low back pain, prognostic factors, pain persistence, psychosocial factors, catastrophizing, fear avoidance, depression, anxiety, comorbid pain, disability, risk stratification, primary care, secondary prevention, tool validation
MeSH terms
Adult, Back Pain, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Prognosis, Psychometrics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review