Pain-related Self-efficacy Among People With Back Pain

Abstract

Background: Before an intervention can be implemented to improve pain-related self-efficacy, assessment is required. The aim of the present study was to provide a systematic review on which self-efficacy scales are being used among patients with back pain and to evaluate their psychometric properties. Methods: A systematic search was executed in January 2019 and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2009 checklist served as a guide for conducting the study. Electronic databases included Cinahl, Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, and SportDiscus. Publications in English or German language that focused on the adult patient population with back pain and which provided validation or reliability measures on pain-related self-efficacy were included. Results: A total of 3512 records were identified resulting in 671 documents after duplicates were removed. A total of 233 studies were screened full-text, and a total of 47 studies addressing 19 different measures of pain-related self-efficacy were included in the quality analysis. The most commonly used instruments were the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and the Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale. All studies reported internal consistency, but many studies lacked other aspects of reliability and validity. Conclusions: Further research should focus on assessing validity and interpretability of these questionnaires, especially in pain-related target groups. Researchers should select questionnaires that are most appropriate for their study aims and the back pain population and contribute to further validation of these scales to best predict future behavior and develop intervention programs. This systematic review aids selection of pain-related assessment tools in back pain both in research and practice.

Chronic Pain and Quality of Life in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients in China: A Multicenter, Cross-Sectional Study

“…Pain self-efficacy refers to a patient’s confidence in his or her ability to tolerate pain and perform daily activities in spite of it. 20 , 21 A growing body of research has demonstrated that pain self-efficacy can predict mental and physical health. 22 , 23 Patients with chronic pain who have higher self-efficacy levels are more likely to perform health-related behaviors to alleviate the pain, which in turn leads to lower psychological stress and higher QOL.…”

Measurement properties of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire in populations with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review

“…Finally, a 2020 systematic review by Vergeld et al, 47 which included 47 studies (14 of them reporting on the PSEQ-10), assessed psychometric properties of the PSEQ-10 when used with a population with LBP. They reported excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach alpha ranging from 0.88 to 0.94 and excellent test–retest reliability with ICCs ranging from 0.82 to 0.92.…”

“… 32 , 47 The number of items in these scales varies from 8 to 33 items, leading to a variable response burden (completion times). 47 Among all self-efficacy questionnaires, the PSEQ is the most frequently used in clinical setting for MSK disorders. 15 , 36 , 47 According to a Delphi study, it is the preferred clinician tool to assess pain-related self-efficacy.…”

“… 47 Among all self-efficacy questionnaires, the PSEQ is the most frequently used in clinical setting for MSK disorders. 15 , 36 , 47 According to a Delphi study, it is the preferred clinician tool to assess pain-related self-efficacy. 39 It is a short self-administered questionnaire that has been extensively studied with various MSK disorders 10 , 20 , 26 and translated in many languages.…”

“…Only 1 systematic review has been published on the psychometric properties of assessment tools for pain self-efficacy. 47 This systematic review included all available pain self-efficacy scales for a population with low back pain (LBP). The main findings were that the PSEQ and Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale were the most commonly studied scales and that internal consistency was reported in all original included studies but other measurement properties such as reliability, validity, and responsiveness were poorly reported.…”