Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Apr 20;18(4):e0284754. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284754

A cross-sectional investigation of back pain beliefs and fear in physiotherapy and sport undergraduate students

Cameron Black 1, Adrian Mallows 2, Sally Waterworth 2, Paul Freeman 2, Edward Hope 2, Bernard X W Liew 2,*
Editor: Ravi Shankar Yerragonda Reddy3
PMCID: PMC10118113  PMID: 37079578

Abstract

Background

Although low back pain (LBP) beliefs have been well investigated in mainstream healthcare discipline students, the beliefs within sports-related study students, such as Sport and Exercise Science (SES), Sports Therapy (ST), and Sport Performance and Coaching (SPC) programmes have yet to be explored. This study aims to understand any differences in the beliefs and fear associated with movement in students enrolled in four undergraduate study programmes–physiotherapy (PT), ST, SES, and SPC.

Method

136 undergraduate students completed an online survey. All participants completed the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) and Back Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ). Two sets of two-way between-subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were conducted for each outcome of TSK and BBQ, with the independent variables of the study programme, study year (1st, 2nd, 3rd), and their interaction.

Results

There was a significant interaction between study programme and year for TSK (F(6, 124) = 4.90, P < 0.001) and BBQ (F(6, 124) = 8.18, P < 0.001). Post-hoc analysis revealed that both PT and ST students had lower TSK and higher BBQ scores than SES and SPC students particularly in the 3rd year.

Conclusions

The beliefs of clinicians and trainers managing LBP are known to transfer to patients, and more negative beliefs have been associated with greater disability. This is the first study to understand the beliefs about back pain in various sports study programmes, which is timely, given that the management of injured athletes typically involves a multidisciplinary team.

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability globally [1], with high socio-economic cost [2], particularly among individuals with persistent symptoms [3]. The management of those with persistent, chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most challenging aspects of clinical care [4]. Over the last decade, numerous clinical-practice guidelines (CPGs) have been published recommending the biopsychosocial model of care for CLBP [5, 6]. However, there has been an alarming lack of adherence to these recommendations [7–9], with the literature revealing a predominance of the biomedical model of care for CLBP [10].

The lack of adherence to LBP guidelines may be attributed to preconceived beliefs held by healthcare professionals (HCP) on the cause and optimal management of LBP [8]. The beliefs of HCP can explain as much as one-fifth of the variance in their recommendations to a patient with LBP [11]. There is consistent and strong evidence that HCP with a biomedical orientation or elevated fear-avoidance beliefs are more likely to advise patients to limit work and less likely to adhere to guidelines [12–15]. Evidence suggests that LBP beliefs are already present in the emerging HCP workforce [16], which suggests that educational factors play an important role in the formation of such beliefs. To date, beliefs related to LBP have been investigated in students enrolled in HCP disciplines such as physiotherapy (PT) [17–21], medicine [22–24], nursing [17, 19, 20], pharmacy [22], chiropractic [22], occupational therapy (OT) [19, 22], and midwifery [23].

It has been reported that PT students had more positive beliefs about LBP than medical, OT, and pharmacy students [22], as well as more positive beliefs about the harmfulness of common daily activities than OT and nursing students, respectively [19], but there was no differentiation among academic year groups. Understanding the effect of the study year and its possible interaction across different degree programmes may be important given research has reported an improvement in positive beliefs about LBP across study years [25]. Beliefs about LBP can also be affected by the course, with one study reporting that PT students had more positive LBP attitudes than non-healthcare students, although the nature of non-healthcare programmes were not provided [21].

Although LBP beliefs have been well investigated in mainstream HCP discipline students, the beliefs within sports-related study students, such as Sport and Exercise Science (SES), Sports Therapy (ST), and Sport Performance and Coaching (SPC) programmes have yet to be explored. This is surprising given that LBP [26, 27], fear and unhelpful beliefs are common amongst athletes, such as rowers [28, 29]. The management of athletes with LBP would often involve a multidisciplinary team that include professions beyond traditional HCP, such as sports scientists and coaches [30]. If different members of the multidisciplinary team have different beliefs about LBP, this can result in conflicting management and communication. Given that people with LBP want consistent information about their disorder, having different beliefs about LBP could potentially lead to suboptimal management of the disorder.

This study aims to understand any differences in the beliefs and fear associated with movement in students enrolled in four undergraduate study programmes–PT, ST, SES, and SPC, within a higher education institution (HEI) in the United Kingdom (UK). Prior research found that PT students have the most positive beliefs and that these can change over time based on new experiences and knowledge [20, 31]. Hence, we hypothesised that PT students have the most positive beliefs and the least amount of fear, when compared to the students enrolled on other programmes. Further, the effect of degree programmes will be greater in the latter study years.

Methods

Study design

This was a cross-sectional study involving an online survey (Qualtrics XM,Qualtrics, Provo, Utah, USA). Between November 2021 and April 2022, the survey was distributed to participants who were currently enrolled in either SES, ST, SPC or PT undergraduate programmes., which are all three-years in length. The PT programme is approved by the Health and Care Professions Council. Specific modules taught on each programme, along with a brief overview of their aims, study credits, and when teaching occurred, can be found in the supplementary material. Electronic informed consent was sought from all participants before study enrolment. Ethical approval was received from the University of Ethics human research ethics committee (ETH2122-0043).

Power analysis

The Superpower package was used for power calculation [32]. A previous study reported mean Back Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ) scores of 37.5, 35.3, 30.0 for PT, chiropractic, and pharmacy students, respectively [22]. Based on a one-way analysis of variance ANOVA with four levels, with a mean BBQ score of 38 (PT), 35 (ST), 30 (SES), and 30 (SPC); a standard deviation of 5 [22], a sample size of 30 participants in each group, would achieve a power of 0.97 at an alpha of 0.05.

Participants

Participants were eligible for the study if they were enrolled in one of the four undergraduate courses (year 1, 2, or 3) of PT, SES, ST, and SPC degrees within the University for the academic year of 2021–2022. 166 undergraduate students participated in the present study, with 136 providing complete data to be included in the analysis. The descriptive characteristics of the included participants can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of included participants.

Sport & Exercise Science Sport & Performance Coaching Sports Therapy Physiotherapy
Variable Yr 1, N = 131 Yr 2, N = 261 Yr 3, N = 91 Yr 1, N = 121 Yr 2, N = 141 Yr 3, N = 101 Yr 1, N = 111 Yr 2, N = 71 Yr 3, N = 101 Yr 1, N = 81 Yr 2, N = 61 Yr 3, N = 101
Age 18.92 (0.64) 20.31 (1.29) 21.22 (1.09) 18.83 (0.83) 20.36 (0.84) 21.40 (0.84) 19.00 (0.63) 20.71 (1.11) 22.00 (1.83) 19.25 (0.46) 20.33 (0.52) 21.50 (0.71)
Body mass (kg) 76.92 (14.00) 75.26 (12.63) 81.11 (16.22) 78.17 (20.68) 73.77 (25.53) 80.30 (3.86) 73.09 (9.07) 70.00 (7.19) 72.90 (7.62) 71.75 (7.25) 73.33 (6.38) 75.60 (11.27)
Height (m) 1.73 (0.11) 1.74 (0.09) 1.79 (0.08) 1.70 (0.11) 1.72 (0.13) 1.76 (0.05) 1.70 (0.09) 1.72 (0.07) 1.75 (0.06) 1.71 (0.10) 1.70 (0.07) 1.72 (0.09)
Gender
    Male 11 / 13 (85%) 22 / 26 (85%) 8 / 9 (89%) 11 / 12 (92%) 7 / 14 (50%) 9 / 10 (90%) 10 / 11 (91%) 5 / 7 (71%) 9 / 10 (90%) 8 / 8 (100%) 6 / 6 (100%) 9 / 10 (90%)
    Female 2 / 13 (15%) 4 / 26 (15%) 1 / 9 (11%) 1 / 12 (8.3%) 7 / 14 (50%) 1 / 10 (10%) 1 / 11 (9.1%) 2 / 7 (29%) 1 / 10 (10%) 0 / 8 (0%) 0 / 6 (0%) 1 / 10 (10%)
LBP history (yes) 11 / 13 (85%) 19 / 26 (73%) 7 / 9 (78%) 6 / 12 (50%) 11 / 14 (79%) 8 / 10 (80%) 9 / 11 (82%) 7 / 7 (100%) 8 / 10 (80%) 7 / 8 (88%) 4 / 6 (67%) 8 / 10 (80%)
Open in a new tab

Survey

Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia– 11 items (TSK-11)

The TSK-11 is an 11-item questionnaire [33]. Each item is scored on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ‘strongly disagree’ to 4 ‘strongly agree’; total scores vary between 11 and 44, with higher scores indicating higher levels of fear of movement-related pain [33]. The TSK has acceptable to excellent psychometric properties which have been previously reported [34].

The Back Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ)

The BBQ is a 14-item questionnaire, with five distractor items (questions 4, 5, 7, 9 and 11) that are not included in the final score [35]. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”. Given that the remaining items are reverse scored, the total score ranges from 9 to 45, with higher scores indicating a more optimistic belief about the consequences of LBP. BBQ has acceptable psychometric properties, which have been previously reported [36].

Statistical analysis

All analyses were performed in R software. For the dependent variables of TSK and BBQ score, two separate two-way between-subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were conducted, with the independent variables of the study programme (SES, SPC, ST, PT), study year (1st, 2nd, 3rd), and their interaction. Pairwise contrast via estimated marginal means was performed for post-hoc analysis where the primary analysis indicated a statistical significance. For all analyses, an alpha threshold of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.

Results

For TSK score, there was a significant interaction between study programme and year (F(6, 124) = 4.90, P < 0.001), and main effects of study programme (F(3, 124) = 9.80, P < 0.001) and year (F(2, 124) = 78.54, P < 0.001) (Fig 1). Between study programme differences were found only in the 3rd-year students. Post-hoc analysis revealed that ST students had lower TSK scores compared to SES and SPC students by 7.63 (95%CI 1.13 to 14.14, P = 0.014) and 11.40 (95%CI 5.07 to 17.73, P < 0.001), respectively (Fig 1). In addition, PT students also had lower TSK scores compared to SES and SPC students by 11.63 (95%CI 5.13 to 18.14, P < 0.001) and 15.40 (95%CI 9.07 to 21.73, P < 0.001), respectively (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Group average with error bars as one standard deviation of the total score of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia 11-item version, for each study programme and year.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

* Indicates a statistically significant (P < 0.05) pairwise difference. Abbreviation: SES–Sport and Exercise Science, SPC–Sport and Performance Coaching, ST–Sports Therapy, PT–Physiotherapy.

For BBQ score, there was a significant interaction between study programme and year (F(6, 124) = 8.18, P < 0.001), and main effects of study programme (F(3, 124) = 14.55, P < 0.001) and year (F(2, 124) = 64.19, P < 0.001) (Fig 2). In 3rd year students, post-hoc analysis revealed that SES students had greater BBQ score compared to SPC by 8.02 (95%CI 0.29 to 15.76, P = 0.039), and a lesser score compared to ST and PT students by 10.69 (95%CI 2.94 to 19.41, P = 0.003) and 14.98 (95%CI 7.24 to 22.71, P < 0.001), respectively (Fig 2). In 3rd year students, SPC students had lower BBQ score compared to ST and PT students by 18.70 (95%CI 11.17 to 26.23, P < 0.001) and 23.00 (95%CI 15.47 to 30.53, P < 0.001), respectively (Fig 2). In 2nd year students, SPC students had lower BBQ score compared to PT students by 9.00 (95%CI 0.79 to 17.21, P = 0.026) (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Group average with error bars as one standard deviation of the total score of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia 11-item version, for each study programme and year.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

* Indicates a statistically significant (P < 0.05) pairwise difference. Abbreviation: SES–Sport and Exercise Science, SPC–Sport and Performance Coaching, ST–Sports Therapy, PT–Physiotherapy.

Discussion

Negative beliefs and fear perceptions of LBP harboured during training have been suggested to play a critical role in influencing beliefs and emotions when entering the workforce [17]. This study set out to explore any differences in the beliefs and fear associated with movement in students enrolled in four undergraduate study programmes–PT, ST, SES, and SPC, within a HEI in the UK. In partial support of our hypotheses, PT and ST students had greater positive beliefs and lower levels of fear than SES and SPC students, which largely occurred in the third year of studies. The similar trajectory of PT and ST students’ beliefs and fear compared to the other cohorts suggest there may be an important distinction in their educational experiences compared to SES and SPC study programmes. Given that the management of LBP within the sporting environment relies on multidisciplinary care, our findings provide the basis upon which management might differ between professional disciplines and the contributing factors of these differences.

No studies to our knowledge have compared LBP beliefs and fear in PT students with those enrolled in various sports-study programmes. A recent systematic review of back beliefs suggested that a sum score above 27 indicated positive beliefs about the BBQ [37]. It is interesting to note that PT and ST students scored well above this cut-off score and well above most of the studies included in the review (8 out of 12 studies). One study reported that final-year PT and chiropractic students had more helpful LBP beliefs than OT, medicine, and pharmacy students [22], which indirectly supports the finding of the present study. Comparing the BBQ score, 3rd year PT and ST students reported a mean score of 43.2 and 38.9 in the present study, whilst final-year PT and chiropractic students in another study reported a mean score of 37.5 and 35.3, respectively [22]. One study reported a mean BBQ score of 33.7 across study years in PT students, but scores for each year were not reported [23]. Kennedy et al. (2014) [23] also reported that PT students had more positive beliefs toward LBP than medical and nursing students, and such beliefs significantly improved over their study years.

The presence of more positive back pain beliefs and lower fear levels in 3rd year PT and ST students, compared to SES and SPC students, could be due to several factors. These include curricula differences within each programme, including specific contents of taught modules and the presence of mandatory clinical placements in PT and ST. The more positive beliefs and lower fear levels could be due to the embedment of (spinal) pain education into the curricula of PT and ST students. A previous study reported that chiropractic and PT students received a total of 310 hrs and 112.5 hrs of curricula related to the management of spinal pain in their final year, compared to medicine (4 hrs, BBQ = 32.6), OT (10 hrs, BBQ = 31.8), and pharmacy students (2 hrs, BBQ = 30.0) [22]. Although a correlational analysis was not conducted, speculatively, the relationship between the number of hours of curricula dedicated to spinal pain and BBQ score could be non-linear [22]. A previous study reported that short (6.5h) education sessions focusing on spinal pain mechanisms can promote more positive back pain beliefs and attitudes in HCP [38]. This suggests that there is an optimal threshold of taught hours dedicated to spinal pain for an effect on BBQ score.

Having clinical experience with real-world patients experiencing LBP during clinical placements could be an important contributor to back pain beliefs. This could explain why PT students had more positive beliefs in their 2nd year, when they had already started clinical placements, compared to ST students who only do such placements in their final year. The present cohort of 2nd year PT students had a mean BBQ score of 31.0, which was comparable with PT students (BBQ = 30.7) enrolled in HEIs in Australia, Taiwan, and Singapore [39]. In a qualitative study of medical students, learning from clinical placements was cited as an important source of influence for their back pain beliefs [40]. Presently, it is uncertain what elements within clinical placements—such as patient interaction, case discussion with a HCP, etc, drive an improvement in back pain beliefs. Yet, as some HCPS have been shown to display negative back pain beliefs [12], this may conflict with the learning of students when forming beliefs about LBP.

The more negative beliefs and greater fear levels in SES and SPC students provide opportunities for curricula modification to prepare them professionally for their encounter with athletes suffering from LBP. Although it is not realistic to expect SES and SPC students to receive extensive healthcare training, embedding short education sessions focusing on spinal or general musculoskeletal pain education could be incorporated into exercise or rehabilitation-focused modules. Given that sports-related study programmes within the UK HEI setting typically co-exist within the same faculty, opportunities for cross-disciplinary teaching may be useful in knowledge exchange between HCPs and sports practitioners. From an applied perspective, and given the prevalence of LBP amongst athletes [26, 27], a greater understanding of the condition will facilitate multidisciplinary management of said individuals [30].

Limitations

This study has some limitations. We did not account for the potential confounding effect of LBP history and sex in our analysis, as it did not form our primary hypothesis, and would have substantively increased the same size requirement. However, previous studies reported no statistically significant effect of LBP history of back pain beliefs [18–20]. There is some evidence that female participants report greater levels of fear to pain than male participants [41]. It is unlikely that the lower BBQ and TSK scores reported in PT students was attributed to a lack of female participants in the group. This was because the lack of female participants in the PT group was present across all year groups, but significance was detected largely in the 3rd year group. The cross-sectional nature precludes making within-subject inferences about whether the back pain beliefs and fear levels of a student improve across study years [25]. Given that the study programmes investigated in this study may differ in their curricula across different HEIs, extrapolating our findings nationally and internationally should be done with caution. A previous study reported the importance of the cultural context of higher education on back pain beliefs in physiotherapy students [39]. Even within the same country, similar study programmes between different HEIs may vary in the substantive content of their taught modules. For PT programmes, taught courses across different HEIs within the UK may be more easily comparable given they have to meet a common standard of proficiency set out by their regulatory body, although there may be some differences in how they achieve this.

Conclusion

The effect of different undergraduate health and sport study programs on back pain beliefs and fear depended on the study year. PT and ST students have more positive back pain beliefs and lower fear levels than SES and SPC students, particularly when in their final (3rd) year. The beliefs of HCPs are known to transfer to patients, and more negative beliefs have been associated with greater disability. This is the first study to understand the beliefs about back pain in various sports study programmes, which is timely, given that the management of injured athletes typically involves a multidisciplinary team. Future research is required to investigate the elements within taught modules and clinical placements that contribute to the formation of back pain beliefs in students. This is critical to identify flexible and feasible strategies to improve the understanding of pain management across a heterogeneous set of study programmes.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (9.3KB, xlsx)
S2 Data. Modules undertaken by the four study programs of physiotherapy, sports therapy, sports and exercise science, and sports performance and coaching in the 2021/22 academic year.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (31.4KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We like to thank Adam Webster, Saif Siddiqi, and William Rodrigues Da Silva for assisting in data collection.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Wu A, March L, Zheng X, Huang J, Wang X, Zhao J, et al. Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8:299. doi: 10.21037/atm.2020.02.175 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Maniadakis N, Gray A. The economic burden of back pain in the UK. Pain. 2000;84:95–103. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00187-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J. 2008;8:8–20. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rothschild B. Overcoming the challenge of back pain complaints. Rheumatol Res. 2017;2:79–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bernstein IA, Malik Q, Carville S, Ward S. Low back pain and sciatica: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2017;356. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6748 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Delitto A, George SZ, Van Dillen L, Whitman JM, Sowa G, Shekelle P, et al. Low back pain: clinical practice guidelines linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health from the Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42:A1–A57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.de Souza FS, Ladeira CE, Costa LOP. Adherence to Back Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines by Brazilian Physical Therapists: A Cross-sectional Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42:E1251–e1258. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gardner T, Refshauge K, Smith L, McAuley J, Hübscher M, Goodall S. Physiotherapists’ beliefs and attitudes influence clinical practice in chronic low back pain: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. J Physiother. 2017;63:132–143. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2017.05.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kamper SJ, Logan G, Copsey B, Thompson J, Machado GC, Abdel-Shaheed C, et al. What is usual care for low back pain? A systematic review of health care provided to patients with low back pain in family practice and emergency departments. Pain. 2020;161:694–702. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001751 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Foster NE, Anema JR, Cherkin D, Chou R, Cohen SP, Gross DP, et al. Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions. Lancet. 2018;391:2368–2383. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30489-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Rainville J, Carlson N, Polatin P, Gatchel RJ, Indahl A. Exploration of physicians’ recommendations for activities in chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:2210–2220. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200009010-00012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Christe G, Nzamba J, Desarzens L, Leuba A, Darlow B, Pichonnaz C. Physiotherapists’ attitudes and beliefs about low back pain influence their clinical decisions and advice. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2021;53:102382. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2021.102382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Darlow B, Dowell A, Baxter GD, Mathieson F, Perry M, Dean S. The enduring impact of what clinicians say to people with low back pain. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11:527–534. doi: 10.1370/afm.1518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Poitras S, Durand MJ, Côté AM, Tousignant M. Guidelines on low back pain disability: interprofessional comparison of use between general practitioners, occupational therapists, and physiotherapists. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:1252–1259. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824b6adf [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Stochkendahl MJ, Larsen OK, Nim CG, Axén I, Haraldsson J, Kvammen OC, et al. Can chiropractors contribute to work disability prevention through sickness absence management for musculoskeletal disorders?—a comparative qualitative case study in the Scandinavian context. Chiropr Man Ther. 2018;26:15. doi: 10.1186/s12998-018-0184-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.França AA, Santos Vd, Filho RL, Pires KF, Lagoa KF, Martins WR. ‘It’s very complicated’: Perspectives and beliefs of newly graduated physiotherapists about the biopsychosocial model for treating people experiencing non-specific low back pain in Brazil. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2019;42:84–89. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2019.04.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML, Latimer J, Maher CG, Refshauge K, Sakamoto A, et al. Attitudes and beliefs of Brazilian and Australian physiotherapy students towards chronic back pain: a cross-cultural comparison. Physiother Res Int. 2004;9:13–23. doi: 10.1002/pri.296 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Latimer J, Maher C, Refshauge K. The attitudes and beliefs of physiotherapy students to chronic back pain. Clin J Pain. 2004;20:45–50. doi: 10.1097/00002508-200401000-00009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Leahy A, O’Keeffe M, Robinson K, O’Sullivan K. The beliefs of healthcare students about the harmfulness of daily activities for their back: a cross-sectional study. Eur J Physiother. 2021;23:34–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Leysen M, Nijs J, Van Wilgen P, Demoulin C, Dankaerts W, Danneels L, et al. Attitudes and beliefs on low back pain in physical therapy education: A cross-sectional study. Braz J Phys Ther. 2021;25:319–328. doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2020.08.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ryan C, Murphy D, Clark M, Lee A. The effect of a physiotherapy education compared with a non-healthcare education on the attitudes and beliefs of students towards functioning in individuals with back pain: an observational, cross-sectional study. Physiotherapy. 2010;96:144–150. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2009.09.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Briggs AM, Slater H, Smith AJ, Parkin-Smith GF, Watkins K, Chua J. Low back pain-related beliefs and likely practice behaviours among final-year cross-discipline health students. Eur J Pain. 2013;17:766–775. doi: 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00246.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kennedy N, Healy J, O’Sullivan K. The Beliefs of Third-Level Healthcare Students towards Low-Back Pain. Pain Res Treat. 2014;2014:675915. doi: 10.1155/2014/675915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Morris H, Ryan C, Lauchlan D, Field M. Do medical student attitudes towards patients with chronic low back pain improve during training? a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:10. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-12-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Christe G, Darlow B, Pichonnaz C. Changes in physiotherapy students’ beliefs and attitudes about low back pain through pre-registration training. Arch Physiother. 2021;11:13. doi: 10.1186/s40945-021-00106-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Trompeter K, Fett D, Platen P. Prevalence of Back Pain in Sports: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sports Med. 2017;47:1183–1207. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0645-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wilson F, Ardern CL, Hartvigsen J, Dane K, Trompeter K, Trease L, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for back pain in sports: a systematic review with meta-analysis. BJSM. 2021;55:601–607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Casey MB, Wilson F, Ng L, O’Sullivan K, Caneiro JP, O’Sullivan PB, et al. "There’s definitely something wrong but we just don’t know what it is": A qualitative study exploring rowers’ understanding of low back pain. J Sci Med Sport. 2022;25:557–563. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2022.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wilson F, Ng L, O’Sullivan K, Caneiro JP, O’Sullivan PP, Horgan A, et al. ’You’re the best liar in the world’: a grounded theory study of rowing athletes’ experience of low back pain. BJSM. 2021;55:327–335. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102514 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Reid C, Stewart E, Thorne G. Multidisciplinary Sport Science Teams in Elite Sport: Comprehensive Servicing or Conflict and Confusion? Sport Psychol. 2004;18:204–217. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Leventhal H, Phillips LA, Burns E. The Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM): a dynamic framework for understanding illness self-management. J Behav Med. 2016;39:935–946. doi: 10.1007/s10865-016-9782-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lakens D, Caldwell AR. Simulation-Based Power Analysis for Factorial Analysis of Variance Designs. Adv Meth Pract Psychol Sci. 2021;4:2515245920951503. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Woby SR, Roach NK, Urmston M, Watson PJ. Psychometric properties of the TSK-11: a shortened version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. Pain. 2005;117:137–144. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2005.05.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Weermeijer JD, Meulders A. Clinimetrics: Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. J Physiother. 2018;64:126. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2018.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Symonds TL, Burton AK, Tillotson KM, Main CJ. Do Attitudes and Beliefs Influence Work Loss Due to Low Back Trouble? Occ Med. 1996;46:25–32. doi: 10.1093/occmed/46.1.25 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ferreira GE, Kamper SJ. Clinimetrics: The Back Beliefs Questionnaire. J Physiother. 2020;66:200. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2020.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Morton L, de Bruin M, Krajewska M, Whibley D, Macfarlane GJ. Beliefs about back pain and pain management behaviours, and their associations in the general population: A systematic review. Eur J Pain. 2019;23:15–30. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Slater H, Davies SJ, Parsons R, Quintner JL, Schug SA. A policy-into-practice intervention to increase the uptake of evidence-based management of low back pain in primary care: a prospective cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e38037. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Burnett A, Sze CC, Tam SM, Yeung KM, Leong M, Wang WT, et al. A Cross-cultural Study of the Back Pain Beliefs of Female Undergraduate Healthcare Students. Clin J Pain. 2009;25:20–28. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181805a1e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Inman JGK, Ellard DR. What influences graduate medical students’ beliefs of lower back pain? A mixed methods cross sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22:633. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03692-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Vambheim SM, Øien RA. Sex differences in fear of pain: item-level analysis of the Fear of Pain Questionnaire III. J Pain Res. 2017;10:825–831. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S128850 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ravi Shankar Yerragonda Reddy

8 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-34229Back pain beliefs and fear in physiotherapy and sport undergraduate studentsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liew,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 22 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ravi Shankar Yerragonda Reddy, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page. 

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review comments on Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-34229. Entitled "Back pain beliefs and fear in physiotherapy and sport undergraduate students"

Overall, the idea of research is very interesting to be studied nowadays and paper is coherently developed. However, there are some comments and suggestions.

Abstract

- Well structured

- Keywords: write it in alphabetical order

Introduction

- The abbreviations already mentioned in the abstract so no need to re-write complete terms

Materials and methods

- Well structured

Statistical analysis

- Well structured

References

Update some references is required

Reviewer #2: The manuscript title should include the type of the study. Conclusion of the study doesn't declare the end result of the study obviously, I think it should be re-written. The author should declare participants inclusion criteria rather than study programmes only.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review comments on Manuscript Number.doc

Click here for additional data file. (24KB, doc)
PLoS One. 2023 Apr 20;18(4):e0284754. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284754.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

24 Jan 2023

Please see uploaded document for a properly formatted response.

Reviewer #1

Review comments on Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-34229. Entitled "Back pain beliefs and fear in physiotherapy and sport undergraduate students". Overall, the idea of research is very interesting to be studied nowadays and paper is coherently developed. However, there are some comments and suggestions.

Abstract

- Well structured

Reply: We thank the Reviewer for the positive comments. We will address all feedback and suggestions provided by the Reviewer.

- Keywords: write it in alphabetical order

Reply: We have reordered it to alphabetical order.

Introduction

- The abbreviations already mentioned in the abstract so no need to re-write complete terms

Reply: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We kindly have to disagree with this feedback, as we feel that similar to Figures and Tables, the main manuscript should be worded independently from the Abstract. We have thus retained the definition of the abbreviations in the main manuscript. However, we will seek the guidance of the Editor on this matter too, during the resubmission process.

Materials and methods

- Well structured

Statistical analysis

- Well structured

Reply: We thank the Reviewer for the positive comments.

References

Update some references is required

Reply: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We are unsure if the Reviewer is suggesting we ensure our References are follow PLoS’s guidance, or if new references are needed. We have ensured that our Reference format follows PLoS. We believe that we have tried to cite the latest evidence where available. We are very open to amending any references that the Reviewer thinks needs editing. We hope that the Reviewer can provide the relevant citations for us to consider including.  

Reviewer #2

The manuscript title should include the type of the study.

Reply: We have modified the title to read as “A cross-sectional investigation of back pain beliefs and fear in physiotherapy and sport undergraduate students”.

Conclusion of the study doesn't declare the end result of the study obviously, I think it should be re-written.

Reply: We have added a sentence at the start of the Conclusion, that reads as:

The effect of different undergraduate health and sport study programs on back pain beliefs and fear depended on the study year.

The author should declare participants inclusion criteria rather than study programmes only.

Reply: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We followed the broad inclusion criteria of prior similar publications (Inman and Ellard, 2022; Leysen et al., 2021), where the priminary inclusion criteria was that students are enrolled into the program. Given that the aim of the present study was to investigate the beliefs and fear in a representative sample of students in our defined study programs, there was no further inclusion criteria.

References

1.Inman, J.G.K., Ellard, D.R., 2022. What influences graduate medical students’ beliefs of lower back pain? A mixed methods cross sectional study. BMC Med Educ 22, 633.

2.Leysen, M., Nijs, J., Van Wilgen, P., Demoulin, C., Dankaerts, W., Danneels, L., . . . Roussel, N., 2021. Attitudes and beliefs on low back pain in physical therapy education: A cross-sectional study. Braz J Phys Ther 25, 319-28.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ReplyReview_R1_v1.docx

Click here for additional data file. (29KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Ravi Shankar Yerragonda Reddy

10 Apr 2023

A cross-sectional investigation of back pain beliefs and fear in physiotherapy and sport undergraduate students

PONE-D-22-34229R1

Dear Dr. Bernard X W Liew,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ravi Shankar Yerragonda Reddy, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review comments on Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-34229R1. “Entitled "A cross-sectional investigation of back pain beliefs and fear in physiotherapy and sport undergraduate students"

Overall, the idea of research is very interesting, organized and well written reasonable. The authors have done great effort to accomplish this work. They fulfilled all reviewers' comments and made necessary changes throughput the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The author has been addressed all previous comments and the manuscript seems to be corrected precisely

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Amira M. Abd-elmonem

Reviewer #2: No

**********

<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

Acceptance letter

Ravi Shankar Yerragonda Reddy

12 Apr 2023

PONE-D-22-34229R1

A cross-sectional investigation of back pain beliefs and fear in physiotherapy and sport undergraduate students

Dear Dr. Liew:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ravi Shankar Yerragonda Reddy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (9.3KB, xlsx)
    S2 Data. Modules undertaken by the four study programs of physiotherapy, sports therapy, sports and exercise science, and sports performance and coaching in the 2021/22 academic year.

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (31.4KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review comments on Manuscript Number.doc

    Click here for additional data file. (24KB, doc)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ReplyReview_R1_v1.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (29KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES