Dataset Information

Back Pain and Body Posture Evaluation Instrument for Children and Adolescents (BackPEI-CA): Expansion, Content Validation, and Reliability.

ABSTRACT: The Back Pain and Body Posture Evaluation Instrument (BackPEI) was created in 2013 to assess back pain and its risk factors in school children. However, it does not assess neck pain or the habits of mobile device usage, which are aspects that are often part of school children's lives. Therefore, we aimed to update the BackPEI questionnaire to include new questions assessing aspects related to neck pain and the use of mobile devices and to test the content validity and reliability of the new questions. The updated questionnaire was named Back Pain and Body Posture Evaluation Instrument for Children and Adolescents (BackPEI-CA). The content was validated by eight experts using the content validity index (CVI). To assess reliability, the BackPEI-CA questionnaire was applied at two different times in 105 school children, and Cohen's kappa (k) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated. All aspects assessed regarding content validity had a CVI higher than 0.8. The new questions presented moderate and good kappa values and excellent ICC values. The updated version of BackPEI-CA can be used as a clinic tool for assessing the presence, frequency, and intensity of back and neck pain and their risk factors.

SUBMITTER: da Rosa BN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8835607 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Back Pain and Body Posture Evaluation Instrument for Children and Adolescents (BackPEI-CA): Expansion, Content Validation, and Reliability.

da Rosa Bruna Nichele BN Candotti Cláudia Tarragô CT Pivotto Luiza Rampi LR Noll Matias M Silva Marcelle Guimarães MG Vieira Adriane A Loss Jefferson Fagundes JF

International journal of environmental research and public health 20220127 3

The Back Pain and Body Posture Evaluation Instrument (BackPEI) was created in 2013 to assess back pain and its risk factors in school children. However, it does not assess neck pain or the habits of mobile device usage, which are aspects that are often part of school children's lives. Therefore, we aimed to update the BackPEI questionnaire to include new questions assessing aspects related to neck pain and the use of mobile devices and to test the content validity and reliability of the new ques ...[more]

PMID: 35162421

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the 'Patient Enablement Instrument', we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.MethodsThe PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test-retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.ResultsThe PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.ConclusionsThe PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.Trial registrationNot applicable.

Project description:BackgroundHabitual postural patterns are associated with musculoskeletal pain, and improving a maladaptive posture requires postural awareness in order to lead to clinical improvements. This study aimed to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of an innovative postural awareness scale.MethodsA 12-item Postural Awareness Scale (PAS) was developed and administered to 512 chronic pain patients (50.3 ± 11.4 years, 91.6% female, 37.1% spinal/shoulder pain) to assess its factor structure and reliability. To determine convergent validity, measures of body awareness, body responsiveness, body image, and mindfulness were correlated with the PAS, as were clinical measures of pain intensity, disability, and mental health. Sensitivity to change was assessed in 202 outpatients participating in a 10-week multimodal mind-body program.ResultsFactor analysis revealed two factors (Ease/Familiarity with Postural Awareness and Need for Attention Regulation with Postural Awareness) that explained 50.8% of the variance. Cronbach's alpha for the complete scale was 0.80; Spearman-Brown coefficient of split-half reliability was 0.67; and intra-class correlation was ICC2,1 = 0.75 (95% confidence interval = 0.71, 0.78). Significant positive correlations were found for body awareness (r = 0.23), body responsiveness (r = 0.41), body image (r = 0.22-0.32), and mindfulness (r = 0.38); negative correlations for pain intensity (r = - 0.14), disability (r = - 0.12), depression (r = - 0.23), and stress (r = - 0.29). Postural awareness scores increased with a mind-body program (p < 0.001); changes in the PAS were negatively correlated with changes in pain intensity (r = - 0.35) in patients with spinal/shoulder pain.ConclusionSelf-reported postural awareness is associated with clinical symptoms in chronic pain patients; improvements in postural awareness are longitudinally associated with reduced pain in patients with spinal/shoulder pain.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a major cause of disease burden around the world. There is known clinical variation in how LBP is treated and addressed; with one cited reason the lack of availability, or use of, evidence-based guidance for clinicians, consumers, and administrators. Despite this a considerable number of policy directives such as clinical practice guidelines, models of care and clinical tools with the aim of improving quality of LBP care do exist. Here we report on the development of a repository of LBP directives developed in the Australian health system and a content analysis of those directives aimed at deepening our understanding of the guidance landscape. Specifically, we sought to determine: (1) What is the type, scale, and scope of LBP directives available? (2) Who are the key stakeholders that drive low back pain care through directives? (3) What content do they cover? (4) What are their gaps and deficiencies?MethodsWe used online web search and snowballing methods to collate a repository of LBP policy documents collectively called 'directives' including Models of Care (MOC), information sheets, clinical tools, guidelines, surveys, and reports, from the last 20 years. The texts of the directives were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis adopting methods from descriptive policy content analysis to categorise and analyse content to determine origins, actors, and themes.ResultsEighty-four directives were included in our analysis. Of those, 55 were information sheets aimed at either healthcare providers or patients, nine were clinical tools, three were reports, four were guidelines, four were MOC, two were questionnaires and five were referral forms/criteria. The three main categories of content found in the directives were 1. Low back pain features 2. Standards for clinical encounters and 3. Management of LBP, each of which gave rise to different themes and subthemes. Universities, not-for-profit organizations, government organisations, hospitals/Local Health Districts, professional organisations, consumers, and health care insurers were all involved in the production of policy directives. However, there were no clear patterns of roles, responsibilities or authority between these stakeholder groups.ConclusionDirectives have the potential to inform practice and to contribute to reducing evidence-policy-practice discordance. Documents in our repository demonstrate that while a range of directives exist across Australia, but the evidence base for many was not apparent. Qualitative content analysis of the directives showed that while there has been increasing attention given to models of care, this is not yet reflected in directives, which generally focus on more specific elements of LBP care at the individual patient and practitioner level. The sheer number and variety of directives, from a wide range of sources and various locations within the Australian health system suggests a fragmented policy landscape without clear authoritative sources. There is a need for clearer, easily accessible trustworthy policy directives that are regularly reviewed and that meet the needs of care providers, and information websites need to be evaluated regularly for their evidence-based nature and quality.

Dataset Information

Back Pain and Body Posture Evaluation Instrument for Children and Adolescents (BackPEI-CA): Expansion, Content Validation, and Reliability.

Publications

Back Pain and Body Posture Evaluation Instrument for Children and Adolescents (BackPEI-CA): Expansion, Content Validation, and Reliability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets