Cleland Joshua A, Fritz Julie M, Brennan Gerard P
Department of Physical Therapy, Physical Therapy Program, Franklin Pierce College, 5 Chenell Drive, Concord, NH 03301, USA.
Eur Spine J. 2008 Jan;17(1):70-9. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0511-y. Epub 2007 Oct 10.
Several prospective studies examining patients receiving physical therapy support the predictive validity of FABQ subscale scores. This has lead to the proposition that the FABQ would be a useful screening tool, permitting early identification of patients at risk for a poor outcome with an opportunity to modify the treatment accordingly. However, the predictive validity of the FABQ within physical therapy practice has yet to be examined. Predictive validity was analyzed between the FABQ-PA, FABQ-W using both disability and pain as the dependent variables using Pearson correlation coefficients and stepwise hierarchical linear regression modeling controlling for baseline variables. Separate analyses were run for patients with private health insurance and those receiving workers' compensation. Further analysis of predictive validity was performed by dichotomizing the outcome of physical therapy. Patients were coded as having a poor outcome if they failed to achieve a minimum clinically important change in disability over the course of treatment. The accuracy of previously reported cut-off scales for both the FABQ-W and FABQ-PA were examined for both payor types. Results of the hierarchical linear regression analyses for patients with private insurance showed neither the FABQ-PA nor the FABQ-W score significantly improved the explained variance in change in pain or disability. For patients receiving workers' compensation, only the FABQ-W subscale score significantly contributed to the model after controlling for the other baseline variables for both changes in disability and pain. Only the FABQ-W subscale was predictive of poor outcome and this was only identified in the worker's compensation group. The results suggest that the work subscale of the FABQ might be an appropriate screening tool to identify patients with work-related LBP who are at risk for a poor outcome with routine physical therapy. Neither FABQ subscale was predictive of outcome for patients with private insurance, and the use of the FABQ, as a screening tool for patients with non-work-related LBP was not supported.
多项针对接受物理治疗患者的前瞻性研究支持了FABQ分量表得分的预测效度。这引发了一种观点,即FABQ将是一种有用的筛查工具,能够早期识别预后不良风险的患者,并有机会相应地调整治疗方案。然而,FABQ在物理治疗实践中的预测效度尚未得到检验。使用Pearson相关系数和逐步分层线性回归模型,以残疾和疼痛作为因变量,对FABQ-PA、FABQ-W之间的预测效度进行了分析,并对基线变量进行了控制。对拥有私人健康保险的患者和接受工伤赔偿的患者分别进行了分析。通过将物理治疗结果二分法对预测效度进行了进一步分析。如果患者在治疗过程中未能在残疾方面实现最小临床重要变化,则被编码为预后不良。针对两种付款类型,均检查了先前报告的FABQ-W和FABQ-PA截止量表的准确性。对拥有私人保险患者的分层线性回归分析结果显示,FABQ-PA和FABQ-W得分均未显著改善疼痛或残疾变化的解释方差。对于接受工伤赔偿的患者,在控制了残疾和疼痛变化的其他基线变量后,只有FABQ-W分量表得分对模型有显著贡献。只有FABQ-W分量表可预测预后不良,且这仅在工伤赔偿组中得到确认。结果表明,FABQ的工作分量表可能是一种合适的筛查工具,用于识别患有与工作相关的腰痛且接受常规物理治疗预后不良风险的患者。对于拥有私人保险的患者,两个FABQ分量表均不能预测预后,且不支持将FABQ用作非工作相关腰痛患者的筛查工具。