Cited by 51Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Evaluation of cognitive behavioral interventions and psychoeducation implemented by rehabilitation specialists to treat fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with low back pain: a systematic review

Baez, Shelby, Hoch, Matthew C., Hoch, Johanna M.·2018·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Objectives To systematically locate, critically appraise, and synthesize the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) and psychoeducation that can be implemented by rehabilitation specialists to treat fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain (LBP).Data sources Electronic databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Psychology and Behavior Sciences Collection, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO) were searched from inception to September 2017.Study selection Assessment of methodological quality was completed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. The Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy was used to evaluate the quality of evidence.Data extraction Study sample, subject demographics, CBT and/or psychoeducation intervention details, data collection time points, outcome assessments, statistical analysis, results, and conclusions were extracted from each study. In addition, effect sizes were calculated.Data synthesis Five high-quality studies (PEDro ≥6) were included. All included studies evaluated fear-avoidance beliefs. CBTs and psychoeducation strategies designed to target patient-specific fears demonstrated clinically meaningful results, while psychoeducation methodologies were not as effective.Conclusions There is inconsistent, patient-oriented evidence (grade B) to support the use of CBTs and/or psychoeducation strategies by rehabilitation specialists to treat fear-avoidance beliefs. Patient-centered and personalized CBTs were most effective to treat these psychosocial factors in patients with LBP when compared with a control treatment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.11.003

Cites

33 of 33 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
Baez, S., Hoch, M. C., & Hoch, J. M.
Affiliations
University of Kentucky (US)
Corresponding author
Baez, Shelby
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-11
Volume
99
Issue
11
Pages
2287-2298
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2771322945
Cited by
51
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3
FWCI
0.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoeducation, fear-avoidance beliefs, low back pain, rehabilitation specialists, patient-centered care, personalized interventions, psychosocial factors, chronic low back pain, acute low back pain, subacute low back pain
MeSH terms
Adult, Avoidance Learning, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Low Back Pain, Young Adult

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