Table 2.

Hypotheses (H) tested by logistic regression, adjusted for potential confounders, with group status as dependent variable

Instrument	Hypothesis	n	B	P-value	Exp(B)	95% CI Exp(B)
Physical characteristics
H1: Activity levela	SAW > SL-Rehab	193	−0.10	0.597	0.91	[0.64–1.30]
Psychological characteristics
H2: Fear avoidanceb	SAW < SL-Rehab	190	−0.06	0.028*	0.94	[0.90–0.99]
H3: Pain catastrophizingc	SAW < SL-Rehab	165	−0.07	0.005*	0.93	[0.88–0.98]
H4: Pain acceptanced	SAW > SL-Rehab	196	0.10	0.001*	1.11	[1.06–1.16]
H5: Psychological distresse	SAW < SL-Rehab	190	−0.01	0.082	0.99	[0.98–1.00]
H7: Pain self efficacyf	SAW > SL-Rehab	198	0.09	0.001*	1.09	[1.05–1.14]
H6: Life controlg	SAW > SL-Rehab	196	0.48	0.012*	1.62	[1.11–2.36]
H8: Active copingh	SAW > SL-Rehab	191	0.04	0.490	1.04	[0.92–1.18]
Work characteristics
H9: Work satisfactioni	SAW > SL-Rehab	190	−0.00	0.639	1.00	[0.98–1.01]
H10: Physical workloadj	SAW < SL-Rehab	192	−0.07	0.003*	0.93	[0.89–0.98]

Exp(B) >1 indicated a higher chance to be in the SAW group

* Significant difference, P < 0.05

^aBaecke Physical Activity Questionnaire, ^b Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, ^c Pain Catastrophizing Scale, ^d Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire, ^e Symptom Checklist R-90, ^f Pain Self Efficacy Questionnaire, ^g Multidimensional Pain Inventory, ^h Utrecht’s Coping List, ⁱ Questionnaire on the Perception and Evaluation of Work, ^j Dutch Musculoskeletal Questionnaire