Table S3.
Summary of cross-sectional studies on informal social support and spinal pain outcomes.
| Author (Year) | Country | Study population (N=) | Quality score (%) | Main study focus | Assessment spinal pain | Assessment social support | Analysis (adjusted or univariate) | Study outcome | Findings | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-sectional associations with pain outcomes | ||||||||||
| Blozik et al. (2009) | Germany | 448 (38%) Primary care sample (neck pain consulters) | 91 | Depression and anxiety as determinants of neck pain | Neck pain and disability scale (20 item measure of neck pain severity and related disability) | Sarason Social Support Questionnaire (adapted 14 item) | Linear regression (adjusted) | Neck pain scale score | Adjusted regression analysis showed no significant association of social support on neck pain | N/S |
| Isacsson et al. (1995) | Sweden | 500 (80%) Participants in cohort study of men born in Malmo, Sweden | 100 | Prevalence of neck and back pain | Self rate musculoskeletal disability questionnaire on neck and back pain in previous 12 months | Comprehensive model including social network and frequency of contact, participation in social activities, emotional support, material support, satisfaction with support | Logistic regression (adjusted) | Prevalence of neck and back pain | A significantly greater risk of back/neck pain was associated with lower levels of instrumental social support | OR 1.6 (1.0–2.7) |
| A significant association was reported on social anchorage and back/neck pain | OR 2.1 (1.2–3.6) | |||||||||
| There was no significant associations between frequency of contact with network or emotional support and back pain | N/S | |||||||||
| Schneider et al. (2005) | Germany | 3488 (61%) Sample of the working population | 82 | The role of workplace, lifestyle and social factors on back pain | Prevalence of back pain within previous 7 days | Number of people within network that can be depended on | Multiple regression. Further analysis based on gender | Relationship between back pain and gender | No significant relationship was reported with social support and back pain for both men and women | N/S |
| Skov et al. (1996) | Denmark | 1306 (66%) Random sample of salespeople within Association of Danish Active Salespeople | 73 | Physical and psychosocial risk factors of back, neck and shoulder pain | Nordic questionnaire on pain intensity previous back pain over past 12 months | Social network | Logistic regression (adjusted) | Symptoms of neck, shoulder and back pain | Social network was not entered into the final analysis for psychosocial risk factors | N/S |
| Takeyachi et al. (2003) | Japan | 816 (98%) Patients attending a medical examination | 55 | Assessment of correlations among back pain outcome measures | Presence of LBP within previous 24 h VAS pain intensity | Social network size and frequency of interaction | Path analysis (adjusted) | LBP status and severity | No association with back pain VAS scores and social network | N/S |
| No association with frequency of social interaction and back pain | N/S | |||||||||
| Cross-sectional associations with psychological outcomes | ||||||||||
| Feleus et al. (2007) | Netherlands | 679 (85%) baseline | 100 | Kinesiophobia in relation to arm, neck, shoulder pain | Disability of arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire | Social support scale (adapted Sarason SSQ) | Multiple regression of cross-sectional data at baseline (adjusted) | Kinesiophobia score at baseline | Univariate analysis showed effect of social support on levels of kinesiophobia at baseline | β – 2.33 (1.37–3.29) p < 0.1 |
| Pain severity scale | Multivariate regression analysis retained social support within the model as a factor contributing to kinesiophobia. Total model accounted for 24% of the variance in kinesiophobia | β – 1.17 (0.28–2.05) | ||||||||
| Patients consulting GPs for neck, back, elbow, wrist or arm pain | Manikin | |||||||||
| Follick et al. (1985) | USA | 107 Participants with CLBP referred to a chronic pain treatment programme | 55 | Disability and emotional levels within the CLBP population | Medically assessed as part of referral to treatment programme with primary complaint of CLBP | Subscale of the sickness impact profile on social interaction | Correlation (crude) | Correlations between psychosocial factors and the MMPI | Psychosocial factors, inclusive of social interaction variable, correlated significantly with all MMPI variables | Reported associations with MMPI subscales (p < 0.01) as part of a psychosocial dimension |
| Klapow et al. (1995) | USA | 95 Consecutive male patients with CLBP recruited from a general orthopaedic clinic | 55 | Linkage of psychosocial variables with clinical subgroups of back pain | Previously validated sub groups of back pain | Sarason Social Support Questionnaire (satisfaction scale only) | Discriminant function analysis (DFA) | Differences in the level of social support between sub groups | Sub group with highest pain level and highest depression scores had significantly lower levels of social support than other two sub groups | ANOVA |
| ANOVA (univariate) | F(2, 92) 10.32, p < 0.01 | |||||||||
| Masters et al. (2007) | USA | 50 Consecutive patients attending spine rehabilitation clinic | 55 | Patient perceptions of social support | Referral and attendance at spine clinic | Quality ratings of received social support from family, friends, spouse and formal levels | Comparison test (univariate) | Relationship to catastrophising subgroups (low/high) | Those with higher levels of catastrophising reported lower levels of instrumental support | X2 (20, N = 48) = 33.93, p = 0.03 |
| Trief et al. (1995) | USA | 70 Patients with chronic back pain (>6 months) attending a rehabilitation programme | 82 | The role of social support within a depression/chronic pain model | Medical assessment as entry criteria to rehabilitation programme | Sarason Social Support Questionnaire (network and satisfaction) | Comparison between groups stratified on depression scores (univariate) | Levels of depressive symptoms | Non depressed back pain patients found to have significantly more people offering support | t = 2.04, p < 0.05 |
| Non depressed back pain patients rated the quality of the social support that they receive as higher compared to depressed group | t = 3.02, p < 0.004 | |||||||||
CLBP – chronic low back pain, LBP – low back pain, β – beta, OR – Odds Ratio, ANOVA – Analysis of variance, N/S – not significant, VAS – visual analogue scale.