Cited by 227Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedicine, History, and PhilosophySpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology

Twenty-five years with the biopsychosocial model of low back pain—is it time to celebrate? A report from the Twelfth International Forum for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain

Pincus, Tamar, Kent, Peter, Bronfort, Gert, Loisel, Patrick, Pransky, Glenn, Hartvigsen, Jan·2013·Spine

Abstract

Study design An integrated review of current knowledge about the biopsychosocial model of back pain for understanding etiology, prognosis, and interventions, as presented at the plenary sessions of the XII International Forum on LBP Research in Primary Care (Denmark; October 17-19, 2012). Objective To evaluate the utility of the model in reference to rising rates of back pain-related disability, by identifying (a) the most promising avenues for future research in biological, psychological, and social approaches, (b) promising combinations of all 3 approaches, and (c) obstacles to effective implementation of biopsychosocial-based research and clinical practice. Summary of background data The biopsychosocial model of back pain has become a dominant model in the conceptualization of the etiology and prognosis of back pain, and has led to the development and testing of many interventions. Despite this back pain remains a leading source of disability worldwide. Methods The review is a synthesis based on the plenary sessions and discussions at the XII International Forum on LBP Research in Primary Care. The presentations included evidence-based reviews of the current state of knowledge in each of the 3 areas (biological, psychological, and social), identification of obstacles to effective implementation and missed opportunities, and identification of the most promising paths for future research. Results Although there is good evidence for the role of biological, psychological, and…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/brs.0b013e3182a8c5d6

Cites

13 of 13 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
Pincus, T., Kent, P., Bronfort, G., Loisel, P., Pransky, G., & Hartvigsen, J.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern Health Sciences University (US)
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Nordisk Institut for Kiropraktik og Klinisk Biomekanik (DK)
Corresponding author
  • Pincus, Tamar
  • Pransky, Glenn
Venue
Spine
Published
2013-11
Volume
38
Issue
24
Pages
2118-2123
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2313370883
Cited by
227
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
11.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Spine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Medicine, History, and Philosophy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Keywords
biopsychosocial model, low back pain, back pain etiology, psychological factors, social factors, biological factors, implementation barriers, primary care
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Psychological, Prognosis, Review Literature as Topic, Social Behavior, Low Back Pain, Evidence-Based Medicine, Biomedical Research

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