The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Psychosocial Predictors of Outcome in Acute and Subchronic Low Back Trouble
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective survey of patients seeking primary care for low back pain. Clinical and psychosocial data, available at presentation, were explored for predictors of outcome at 1 year. OBJECTIVES: To determine the relative value of clinical and psychosocial variables for early identification of patients with a poor prognosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Current treatment strategies for low back pain have failed to stem the rising levels of disability. Psychosocial factors have been shown to be important determinants of response to therapy in chronic patients, but the contribution from similar data in acute or subchronic patients has not been comprehensively investigated. METHODS: Two hundred fifty-two patients with low back pain, presenting to primary care, underwent a structured clinical interview and completed a battery of psychosocial instruments. Follow-up was done by mail at 1 year; outcome was measured using a back pain disability questionnaire. Predictive relationships were sought between the data at presentation and disability at follow-up. RESULTS: Most patients showed improved disability and pain scores, although more than half had persisting symptoms. Eighteen percent showed significant psychological distress at presentation. Multiple regression analysis showed the level of persisting disability to depend principally on measures in the psychosocial domain; for acute cases outcome is also dependent on the absence or presence of a previous history of low back trouble. Discriminant models successfully allocated typically 76% of cases to recovered/not-recovered groups, largely on the basis of psychosocial factors evident at presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Early identification of psychosocial problems is important in understanding, and hopefully preventing, the progression to chronicity in low back trouble.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“occupational disability [11-13]”
From Effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy for the treatment of catastrophisation in patients with fibromyalgia: A randomised controlled trial (2011) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“Some of the consequences that have been associated with pain catastrophizing are more intense pain [6], heightened pain behaviour [7-9], greater analgesic consumption [10,11], reduced involvement in daily activities [3], occupational disability [12-14] and suicidal ideation [15].”
From Effectiveness of the psychological and pharmacological treatment of catastrophization in patients with fibromyalgia: a randomized controlled trial. (2009) · cites this paper as [12]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a state of the art.
Vlaeyen, J. W. S., & Linton, S. J. (2000) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00242-0 · Cited by 4,931
“A prospective study by Burton et al. (1995) concerning predictors of back pain chronicity 1 year after the acute onset is also worth mentioning in this context.”
InfluentialDepression and Pain Comorbidity: A Literature Review
Bair, M. J., Robinson, R. L., Katon, W., & Kroenke, K. (2003) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.163.20.2433 · Cited by 3,463
Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain
Andersson, G. B. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)01312-4 · Cited by 3,181
A review of psychological risk factors in back and neck pain
Linton, S. J. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200005010-00017 · Cited by 1,776
Crombez, G., Vlaeyen, J. W. S., Heuts, P. H. T. G., & Lysens, R. (1999) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00229-2 · Cited by 1,675
Metadata
- Authors
- Burton, A. K., Tillotson, K. M., Main, C. J., & Hollis, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Huddersfield (GB)
- Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Tillotson, K. Malcolm
- ORCID
- Main, Chris J.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 1995-03
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 722-728
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1970664734
- Cited by
- 700
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 29
- FWCI
- 15.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Spine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Huddersfield Repository (University of Huddersfield) (submittedVersion)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
- Huddersfield Research Portal (University of Huddersfield) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- low back pain, psychosocial factors, prognosis, disability, psychological distress, acute low back pain, outcome prediction, primary care
- MeSH terms
- Acute Disease, Adult, Chronic Disease, Disability Evaluation, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Pain Measurement, Prospective Studies, Discriminant Analysis, Low Back Pain
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