Showing papers by "Tamar Pincus published in 2011"
TL;DR: To identify self-administered pain-related self-efficacy measures used in people with chronic pain and to evaluate the clinimetric evidence of the most commonly used scales systematically, two databases were searched and five questionnaires were evaluated.
Abstract: Background: It is likely that people with chronic pain who have low self-efficacy have a worse prognosis. A standard, high-quality measure of self-efficacy in such populations would improve evidence, by allowing meaningful comparisons amongst subgroups and between treatments, and by facilitating pooling across studies in systematic reviews.
Objectives: To identify self-administered pain-related self-efficacy measures used in people with chronic pain and to evaluate the clinimetric evidence of the most commonly used scales systematically.
Methods: We searched 2 databases to identify self-efficacy questionnaires. We evaluated questionnaires identified against previously developed criteria for clinimetric assessment.
Results: We identified 13 relevant measurements assessing self-efficacy, and clinimetrically assessed 5 of these. These questionnaires were the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale, the Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy Scale, the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, the Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale, and the Self-Efficacy Scale. None of the questionnaires showed satisfactory results for all properties. All scales were easily scored and dimensionality was assessed in 2 of 6 of the scales. Internal consistency was acceptable for all questionnaires. There was positive evidence for construct validity in 4 of 6 of the questionnaires. None of the studies used the most up-to-date method of test-retest reliability or responsiveness. Information on interpretability of the scores was minimal in all questionnaires.
Discussion: Further research should focus on assessing responsiveness and interpretability of these questionnaires. Researchers should select questionnaires that are most appropriate for their study aims and population and contribute to further validation of these scales. Future research should measure outcome expectancy alongside self-efficacy to best predict future behavior.
109 citations
TL;DR: There is consensus from a group of 21 international experts that methodological criteria to assess moderators within systematic reviews of RCTs is both timely and necessary.
Abstract: Background
Current methodological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs, but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment. Our objective was to provide researchers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators, in systematic reviews.
104 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a systematic review of self-management interventions in chronic musculoskeletal pain is presented, which is not clear for which sub-groups of patients SM is optimally effective.
98 citations
Queen Mary University of London1, Anglo-European College of Chiropractic2, Arthritis Research UK3, University of Utah4, Oslo University Hospital5, University of Southern Denmark6, VU University Medical Center7, Royal Holloway, University of London8, VU University Amsterdam9, British School of Osteopathy10, University of Warwick11
TL;DR: Low back pain is a common and expensive health complaint and many low back pain trials have been conducted, but these are reported in a variety of ways and are often difficult to interpret.
35 citations
TL;DR: It is confirmed that, in contrast to current guidelines, many practitioners believe that LBP necessitates work absence, and physiotherapists appear to be better placed to liaise with work in terms of both their beliefs and activities.
Abstract: Research has demonstrated that health care practitioners' adherence to guidelines for managing low back pain (LBP) remain suboptimal in recommending work absence, but specific beliefs about their role in maintaining patients at work have not been adequately researched. We examined private musculoskeletal practitioners' (chiropractors, osteopaths, and physiotherapists) beliefs and reported clinical behaviours in reference to patients' work. A cross-sectional postal questionnaire of 900 musculoskeletal practitioners included the Attitudes to Back pain in musculoskeletal practitioners questionnaires, reported frequency of four work-related behaviours, and a new measure of practitioners' work-related beliefs. Data from 337 respondents (37%) were analysed. Eighty percent of respondents reported recommending work absence to patients with LBP sometimes, and 14% recommended a work absence often or always. Seventy percent of practitioners never visit the patient's workplace. Most practitioners report that they prescribe exercises that can be carried out at work. Physiotherapists visited the workplace more frequently and gave less sick leave certification than either of the other groups. They also regarded work as more beneficial and less of a threat to exacerbate patients' LBP. There were small but significant correlations between work-related beliefs and reported behaviours. Our study confirms that, in contrast to current guidelines, many practitioners believe that LBP necessitates work absence. Overall, practitioners perceived their role in returning patients to work as limited, and believed that direct contact with employers was beyond their remit. In the UK, physiotherapists appear to be better placed to liaise with work in terms of both their beliefs and activities.
32 citations
1 citations