The Attitudes to Back Pain Scale in musculoskeletal practitioners (ABS-mp): The development and testing of a new questionnaire

This source preferred by Alan Breen

Authors: Pincus, T., Vogel, S., Santos, R., Breen, A.C., Foster, N.E.L. and Underwood, M.

http://proceedings.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/content/abstract/87-B/SUPP_II/207-c

Journal: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume

Volume: 87-B

Pages: 207

ISSN: 0301-620X

Purpose and background: Practitioners’ beliefs about their professional role, their patients and the nature of back pain can impact on clinical decisions. These attitudes are likely to affect their choice to implement guidelines, whether they engage with their patients’ psychological problems, and their decisions about referral. We aimed to develop, test and explore the underlying dimensions of a new questionnaire, ‘The Attitudes to Back Pain Scale’ (ABS), in a specific group of clinicians, practitioners who specialise in musculoskeletal therapy: chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists (COPs).

Methods and Results: We used a mixed methods study design. Using transcripts of interviews with 42 practitioners, we constructed 54 attitudinal statements, grouped theoretically into six sub-headings. We tested the validity of our categorization on 14 practitioners, who carried out a sorting task, including a rating of difficulty in cat-egorising each item. We sent the draft questionnaires to a large random sample of practitioners (300 COPs). 546 questionnaires were returned (61%). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed on split samples of the dataset. Separate exploratory analyses were done for attitudes concerned with personal interaction (34 items) and attitudes about treatment orientation (18 items), producing six domains ‘Limitations on sessions’, ‘Psychological’, ‘System and Void’, ‘Clinical Limitations’, ‘Reactivation’, and ‘Biomedical’. Confirmatory analyses indicated that the model tested presented a good fit. Validity interviews revealed high agreement of categorisation and low levels of difficulty in categorising the items.

Conclusions: A new questionnaire for measuring clinicians’ attitudes towards back pain has been developed. Further work is required to assess the impact of these factors on practitioners’ behaviour and patient outcomes

This data was imported from PubMed:

Authors: Pincus, T., Vogel, S., Santos, R., Breen, A., Foster, N. and Underwood, M.

Journal: Clin J Pain

Volume: 22

Issue: 4

Pages: 378-386

ISSN: 0749-8047

DOI: 10.1097/01.ajp.0000178223.85636.49

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about practitioners' beliefs and attitudes to the treatment of low back pain, and whether these influence their clinical decisions, intervention strategies, and patient-centered outcomes. This study aimed to develop, test, and explore the underlying dimensions of a new questionnaire, the Attitudes to Back Pain Scale (ABS), in a specific group of clinicians, practitioners who specialize in musculoskeletal therapy. METHODS: Items for the draft questionnaire were derived from interviews with practitioners (chiropractors, osteopaths, and physiotherapists). The draft questionnaire (52 items) sought to assess practitioners' attitudes concerning role and self-image plus their beliefs about treatment goals and prognosis of low back pain. The questionnaire was sent to a random selection of 300 practitioners from each professional group, and 546 (61%) responded. Split-sample analyses were performed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. RESULTS: Separate exploratory analyses were done for attitudes concerned with personal interaction (34 items) and attitudes about treatment orientation (18 items), producing six domains: limitations on sessions, psychologic, connection to health care system, confidence and concern, reactivation, and biomedical. Confirmatory analyses indicated that the model tested presented a good fit. Validity interviews revealed high agreement of categorization and low levels of difficulty in categorizing the items. CONCLUSIONS: The internal structure of the new questionnaire not only shows excellent psychometric properties and good face validity, but also has the added advantage of being developed with a specific clinical context in mind. Additional evaluation is required to fully describe the psychometric integrity of this instrument.

This data was imported from Scopus:

Authors: Pincus, T., Vogel, S., Santos, R., Breen, A., Foster, N. and Underwood, M.

Journal: Clinical Journal of Pain

Volume: 22

Issue: 4

Pages: 378-386

ISSN: 0749-8047

DOI: 10.1097/01.ajp.0000178223.85636.49

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about practitioners' beliefs and attitudes to the treatment of low back pain, and whether these influence their clinical decisions, intervention strategies, and patient-centered outcomes. This study aimed to develop, test, and explore the underlying dimensions of a new questionnaire, the Attitudes to Back Pain Scale (ABS), in a specific group of clinicians, practitioners who specialize in musculoskeletal therapy. METHODS: Items for the draft questionnaire were derived from interviews with practitioners (chiropractors, osteopaths, and physiotherapists). The draft questionnaire (52 items) sought to assess practitioners' attitudes concerning role and self-image plus their beliefs about treatment goals and prognosis of low back pain. The questionnaire was sent to a random selection of 300 practitioners from each professional group, and 546 (61%) responded. Split-sample analyses were performed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. RESULTS: Separate exploratory analyses were done for attitudes concerned with personal interaction (34 items) and attitudes about treatment orientation (18 items), producing six domains: limitations on sessions, psychologic, connection to health care system, confidence and concern, reactivation, and biomedical. Confirmatory analyses indicated that the model tested presented a good fit. Validity interviews revealed high agreement of categorization and low levels of difficulty in categorizing the items. CONCLUSIONS: The internal structure of the new questionnaire not only shows excellent psychometric properties and good face validity, but also has the added advantage of being developed with a specific clinical context in mind. Additional evaluation is required to fully describe the psychometric integrity of this instrument. Copyright © 2006 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

This data was imported from Web of Science (Lite):

Authors: Pincus, T., Vogel, S., Santos, R., Breen, A., Foster, N. and Underwood, M.

Journal: CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN

Volume: 22

Issue: 4

Pages: 378-386

ISSN: 0749-8047

DOI: 10.1097/01.ajp.0000178223.85636.49

This data was imported from Europe PubMed Central:

Authors: Pincus, T., Vogel, S., Santos, R., Breen, A., Foster, N. and Underwood, M.

Journal: The Clinical journal of pain

Volume: 22

Issue: 4

Pages: 378-386

eISSN: 1536-5409

ISSN: 0749-8047

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about practitioners' beliefs and attitudes to the treatment of low back pain, and whether these influence their clinical decisions, intervention strategies, and patient-centered outcomes. This study aimed to develop, test, and explore the underlying dimensions of a new questionnaire, the Attitudes to Back Pain Scale (ABS), in a specific group of clinicians, practitioners who specialize in musculoskeletal therapy. METHODS: Items for the draft questionnaire were derived from interviews with practitioners (chiropractors, osteopaths, and physiotherapists). The draft questionnaire (52 items) sought to assess practitioners' attitudes concerning role and self-image plus their beliefs about treatment goals and prognosis of low back pain. The questionnaire was sent to a random selection of 300 practitioners from each professional group, and 546 (61%) responded. Split-sample analyses were performed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. RESULTS: Separate exploratory analyses were done for attitudes concerned with personal interaction (34 items) and attitudes about treatment orientation (18 items), producing six domains: limitations on sessions, psychologic, connection to health care system, confidence and concern, reactivation, and biomedical. Confirmatory analyses indicated that the model tested presented a good fit. Validity interviews revealed high agreement of categorization and low levels of difficulty in categorizing the items. CONCLUSIONS: The internal structure of the new questionnaire not only shows excellent psychometric properties and good face validity, but also has the added advantage of being developed with a specific clinical context in mind. Additional evaluation is required to fully describe the psychometric integrity of this instrument.

The data on this page was last updated at 04:52 on April 20, 2019.