↓ Skip to main content

Individuals’ explanations for their persistent or recurrent low back pain: a cross-sectional survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 2,680)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
548 tweeters
facebook
21 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
Title
Individuals’ explanations for their persistent or recurrent low back pain: a cross-sectional survey
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1831-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenny Setchell, Nathalia Costa, Manuela Ferreira, Joanna Makovey, Mandy Nielsen, Paul W. Hodges

Abstract

Most people experience low back pain (LBP), and it is often ongoing or recurrent. Contemporary research knowledge indicates individual's pain beliefs have a strong effect on their pain experience and management. This study's primary aim was to determine the discourses (patterns of thinking) underlying people's beliefs about what causes their LBP to persist. The secondary aim was to investigate what they believed was the source of this thinking. We used a primarily qualitative survey design: 130 participants answered questions about what caused their LBP to persist, and where they learned about these causes. We analysed responses about what caused their LBP using discourse analysis (primary aim), and mixed methods involving content analysis and descriptive statistics to analyse responses indicating where participants learnt these beliefs (secondary aim). We found that individuals discussed persistent LBP as 1) due to the body being like a 'broken machine', 2) permanent/immutable, 3) complex, and 4) very negative. Most participants indicated that they learnt these beliefs from health professionals (116, 89%). We concluded that despite continuing attempts to shift pain beliefs to more complex biopsychosocial factors, most people with LBP adhere to the traditional biomedical perspective of anatomical/biomechanical causes. Relatedly, they often see their condition as very negative. Contrary to current "best practice" guidelines for LBP management, a potential consequence of such beliefs is an avoidance of physical activities, which is likely to result in increased morbidity. That health professionals may be the most pervasive source of this thinking is a cause for concern. A small number of people attributed non-physical, unknown or complex causes to their persistent LBP - indicating that other options are possible.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 548 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 26 20%
Student > Master 20 16%
Unspecified 18 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 38 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 33%
Unspecified 21 17%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 8 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 388. 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 28 July 2019.
All research outputs
#27,278
of 13,537,615 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2
of 2,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,594
of 385,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 288 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,537,615 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,680 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 385,109 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 288 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.