Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validity and responsiveness of the French version of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire in chronic low back pain

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 24 November 2016

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

The OMPSQ can also be applied in patients with CLBP, but for the assessment of change in psychosocial variables one should add specific questionnaires.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wieser S, Horisberger B, Schmidhauser S, Eisenring C, Brugger U, Ruckstuhl A, Dietrich J, Mannion AF, Elfering A, Tamcan O, Muller U (2011) Cost of low back pain in Switzerland in 2005. Eur J Health Econ 12:455–467. doi:10.1007/s10198-010-0258-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Balagué F, Mannion AF, Pellisé F, Cedraschi C (2012) Non-specific low back pain. Lancet 379:482–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, Bellamy N, Brandenburg N, Carr DB, Cleeland C, Dionne R, Farrar JT, Galer BS, Hewitt DJ, Jadad AR, Katz NP, Kramer LD, Manning DC, McCormick CG, McDermott MP, McGrath P, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Robinson JP, Royal MA, Simon L, Stauffer JW, Stein W, Tollett J, Witter J (2003) Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 106:337–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Linton SJ, Hallden K (1998) Can we screen for problematic back pain? A screening questionnaire for predicting outcome in acute and subacute back pain. Clin J Pain 14:209–215

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Linton SJ, Boersma K (2003) Early identification of patients at risk of developing a persistent back problem: the predictive validity of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire. Clin J Pain 19:80–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nonclercq O, Berquin A (2012) Predicting chronicity in acute back pain: validation of a French translation of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 55:263–278. doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2012.03.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Opsommer E, Hilfiker R, Raval-Roland B, Crombez G, Rivier G (2013) Test-retest reliability of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire and the situational pain scale in patients with chronic low back pain. Swiss Med Weekly 143:w13903. doi:10.4414/smw.2013.13903

    Google Scholar 

  8. ACC (2009) New Zealand acute low back pain guide, incorporation the guide to assessing psychosocial yellow flags in acute low back pain http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_communications/documents/guide/prd_ctrb112930.pdf. Accessed 29.05.2015

  9. New South Wales WorkCover (2008) Overview Improving outcomes: integrated, active management of workers with soft tissue injury. http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/18765/overview_improving_outcomes_5364.pdf. Accessed 29.05.2015

  10. New South Wales WorkCover (2009) The management of acute/subacute soft tissue injuries to the low back: evidence update and recommendations for clinical practice. https://www.workcover.com/documents.ashx?id=1882. Accessed 29.05.2015

  11. Toward Optimized Practice Program (2011) Guideline for the Evidence-Informed Primary Care Management of Low Back Pain. http://www.topalbertadoctors.org/download/572/LBPGUIDELINESNov25.pdf. Accessed 04.06.2015

  12. Bergström G, Hagberg J, Busch H, Jensen I, Bjorklund C (2014) Prediction of sickness absenteeism, disability pension and sickness presenteeism among employees with back pain. J Occup Rehabil 24:278–286. doi:10.1007/s10926-013-9454-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vogler D, Paillex R, Norberg M, de Goumoens P, Cabri J (2008) Cross-cultural validation of the Oswestry disability index in French. Annales de readaptation et de medecine physique: revue scientifique de la Societe francaise de reeducation fonctionnelle de readaptation et de medecine physique 51:379–385. doi:10.1016/j.annrmp.2008.03.006

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Grisart J, Masquelier E (2005) Evaluation de l’indice de kinésiophobie. Echelle Tampa (TSK-CF). http://www.fmp-fbz.fgov.be/prev/DOC/INTERN/tampafr.pdf. Accessed 13.11.2014 2014

  15. Chaory K, Fayad F, Rannou F, Lefevre-Colau MM, Fermanian J, Revel M, Poiraudeau S (2004) Validation of the French version of the fear avoidance belief questionnaire. Spine 29:908–913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Irachabal S, Koleck M, Rascle N, Bruchon-Schweitzer M (2008) Stratégies de coping des patients douloureux: adaptation française du coping strategies questionnaire (CSQ-F). Encephale 34:47–53

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lépine J (1996) L’échelle HAD (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). In: Guelfi J (ed) L’évaluation clinique standardisée en psychiatrie. Editions Médicales Pierre Fabre, Boulogne, pp 367–374

    Google Scholar 

  18. Perneger TV, Combescure C, Courvoisier DS (2010) General population reference values for the French version of the EuroQol EQ-5D health utility instrument. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 13:631–635. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00727.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jensen MP, Karoly P (2001) Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults. In: Melzack R, Turk D (eds) Handbook of pain assessment. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 15–34

    Google Scholar 

  20. Guy W (1976) ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology. US GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rehab-scales.org (2007) Situational Pain Scale (SPS): a measure of the mental representation of pain intensity in imaginary painful situations. http://www.rehab-scales.org/situational-pain-scale.html. Accessed 04.06.2015 2015

  22. Decruynaere C (2007) The measure of pain by self-report: use of Rasch analysis. [PhD thesis dissertation]. Université catholique de Louvain

  23. Cohen J (1998) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Aspects Treat Care Rehabil 19:539–549. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wideman TH, Hill JC, Main CJ, Lewis M, Sullivan MJ, Hay EM (2012) Comparing the responsiveness of a brief, multidimensional risk screening tool for back pain to its unidimensional reference standards: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Pain 153:2182–2191. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2012.06.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schmidt CO, Kohlmann T, Pfingsten M, Lindena G, Marnitz U, Pfeifer K, Chenot JF (2016) Construct and predictive validity of the German Orebro questionnaire short form for psychosocial risk factor screening of patients with low back pain. Eur Spine J 25:325–332. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4196-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was performed at the Rehabilitation Centre, Clinique Romande de Réadaptation, Service de réadaptation de l’appareil locomoteur, Sion, Switzerland. We would like to thank our participants for their time and cooperation. We also thank Mrs Virginie Roten who helped in part for carry out the data collection and Dr. Cyrille Burrus who was responsible for the eligibility of the participants.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health Sciences, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO) Valais-Wallis, Chemin de l’Agasse 5, 1950, Sion, Switzerland

    R. Hilfiker

  2. University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO), School of Health Sciences (HESAV), Av. de Beaumont 21, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland

    I. A. Knutti, B. Raval-Roland & Emmanuelle Opsommer

  3. Clinique Romande de Réadaptation, Av. du Grand-Champsec 90, 1950, Sion, Switzerland

    G. Rivier

  4. Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    G. Crombez

Authors
  1. R. Hilfiker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. A. Knutti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Raval-Roland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Rivier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. Crombez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emmanuelle Opsommer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuelle Opsommer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

The study was in part supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant No. SNF 13DPD6_132178/1—E. Opsommer) and the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland//HES-SO (RéSaR 07-10_Sagex_23725—E. Opsommer).

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4866-9.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hilfiker, R., Knutti, I.A., Raval-Roland, B. et al. Validity and responsiveness of the French version of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire in chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 25, 2741–2749 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4635-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4635-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation