Table 4.
Final hierarchical linear regression analysis of the relationship between EQ-5D and the psychological scales adjusted for sociodemographic and health/clinical variables (n = 150)
| R2 | R2 change | β a | 95% CI for B | St. β | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | ||||||
| Model 1: sociodemographicb | 7.5% | 7.5% | ||||
| Model 2: health/clinicalc | 14.7% | 7.2% | ||||
| Model 3: illness perceptionsd | 22.6% | 7.9% | ||||
| Brief-IPQ (0–100) | -.007 | -.011 to -.003 | -.345 | .000 | ||
| Model 4: pain catastrophizinge | 17.2% | 2.5% | ||||
| PCS (0–52) | -.005 | -.010 to.000 | -.184 | .045 | ||
| Model 5: psychological distressf | 15.3% | 0.6% | ||||
| HSCL-25 (1–4) | -.056 | -.166 to.054 | -.098 | .316 | ||
a Unstandardized Beta
bModel 1: sex, age, ethnicity, education and employment
cModel 2: back pain (NRS 1–10), 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 in 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