Table 3.
Final hierarchical linear regression analysis of the relationship between RMDQ on the psychological instrument scores, health, clinical and sociodemographic variables (n = 147)
| R2 | R2 Change | β a | 95% CI for B | St. β | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | ||||||
| Model 1: sociodemographicb | 9.7% | 9.7% | ||||
| Model 2: health/clinicalc | 21.9% | 12.2% | ||||
| Model 3: illness perceptionsd | 24.4% | 2.5% | ||||
| Brief-IPQ (0–100) | .060 | .004 to.117 | .195 | .035 | ||
| Model 4: pain catastrophizinge | 25.6% | 3.7% | ||||
| PCS (0–52) | .094 | .022 to.167 | .224 | .011 | ||
| Model 5: psychological distressf | 22.0% | 0.1% | ||||
| HSCL-25 (1–4) | .307 | −1.305 to1.919 | .035 | .707 | ||
aUnstandardized Beta
bModel 1: sex, age, ethnicity, education and smoking
cModel 2: back pain (NRS), baseline RMDQ, baseline EQ-5D, clinical setting (GP or PT) and type of treatment (usual care or cognitive intervention) in addition to the sociodemographic variables (model 1)
dModel 3: illness perceptions by the Brief IPQ (sum score) in addition to the variables in model 1 and 2
eModel 4: pain catastrophizing by the PCS (sum score) in addition to the variables in model 1 and 2
fModel 5:) psychological distress by the HSCL-25 (sum score) in addition to the variables in model 1 and 2