| Title |
Validity and responsiveness of the French version of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire in chronic low back pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-016-4635-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R. Hilfiker, I. A. Knutti, B. Raval-Roland, G. Rivier, G. Crombez, Emmanuelle Opsommer |
| Abstract |
The assessment of a broad range of biopsychosocial aspects is important in the rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) for the prediction of outcome as well as for evaluation. The objective of this study was to test the responsiveness, construct validity and predictive value of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ) compared to other instruments widely used to assess biopsychosocial aspects in patients with CLBP. 111 patients with CLBP admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation completed a set of questionnaires on biopsychosocial aspects at baseline and at discharge. Ninety-eight patients responded at three months for an assessment of the return to work status. Responsiveness of the OMPSQ, the ability to detect change in the construct of interest, was investigated by a set of hypotheses on correlations with widely used questionnaires. We tested the hypothesis that the changes in the OMPSQ would vary along with the responses in the Patient's Global Impression of Change. Prediction of disability at discharge, work status at three months and time to return to work was evaluated with linear, logistic and cox regression models. The OMPSQ showed good predictive values for disability and return to work and construct validity of the instrument was corroborated. Seventy-nine percent of our hypotheses for responsiveness could be confirmed, with the OMPSQ showing the second highest change during the rehabilitation. The OMPSQ can also be applied in patients with CLBP, but for the assessment of change in psychosocial variables one should add specific questionnaires. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 29% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Belgium | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 36% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 26% |
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 03 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,977,974
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#868
of 4,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,793
of 341,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#10
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 341,017 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.