Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Anxiety | Research

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Thai version of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with non-specific low back pain

Authors: Taweewat Wiangkham, Nattawan Phungwattanakul, Natthathida Thongbai, Nisa Situy, Titipa Polchaika, Isara Kongmee, Duangporn Thongnoi, Rujirat Chaisang, Wanisara Suwanmongkhon

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a top musculoskeletal problem and a substantial cause of socioeconomic burden internationally. The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) is a useful screening tool to manage patients with LBP but it is unavailable in Thai. Therefore, the aims of this study were to translate and cross-culturally adapt the SBST into a Thai version (SBST-TH) and validate its psychometric properties (e.g., factor analysis, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, agreement, convergent validity and discriminative validity).

Methods

Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the SBST into Thai version were conducted according to standard guidelines. A total of 200 participants with non-specific LBP were invited to complete the SBST, visual analogue scale for pain intensity, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire, pain catastrophising scale, hospital anxiety and depression scale and the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Thirty participants completed the SBST-TH twice with an interval of 48 h to evaluate test-retest reliability.

Results

Factor analysis demonstrated two (physical and psychological) components for the SBST-TH (39.38% of the total variance). The Cronbach’s alpha (0.86 for total score and 0.76 for psychosocial subscore) represent satisfactory internal consistency. The acceptability of intraclass correlation coefficient was found in the total (0.73) and subscore (0.79). The areas under the curve (AUC) for the total score ranged 0.67–0.85 and 0.66–0.75 for subscore. The excellent discriminative validity was observed (AUC = 0.85, 95% confidence interval = 0.72, 0.97) between the total score of the SBST-TH and disability (RMDQ). Spearman’s correlation coefficients represented moderate to strong correlation (0.32–0.56) between the SBST-TH and all questionnaires. The findings suggest a good relationship between the SBST-TH and disability and quality of life. Owing to the results from the convergent and discriminative validity, construct validity of the SBST-TH can be supported. The minimal detectable changes of the total score and subscore were 2.04 and 1.60, respectively. Significant floor and ceiling effects were not found in the SBST-TH.

Conclusion

The SBST-TH was successfully translated and adapted. It is a valid and reliable tool to classify Thai patients with non-specific LBP into low, moderate and high risks for chronicity.

Trial registration

TCTR20191009005#.

Vos T, Lim SS, Abbafati C, et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1204–22.CrossRef

Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2356–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30480-X.CrossRefPubMed

Maher C, Underwood M, Buchbinder R. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 2017;389(10070):736–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30970-9.CrossRefPubMed

Tan CIC, Liaw JSC, Jiang B, Pothiawala SE, Li H, Leong MKF. Predicting outcomes of acute low back pain patients in emergency department: a prospective observational cohort study. Medicine. 2018;97(26):e11247. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000011247.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bier JD, Ostelo RW, Van Hooff ML, et al. Validity and reproducibility of the STarT Back tool (Dutch version) in patients with low back pain in primary care settings. Phys Ther. 2017;97(5):561–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzx023.CrossRefPubMed

National Statistics of Thailand. The survey of sanitation habofcotp, 2017.Available: http://www.nso.go.th/sites/2014/DocLib13, Accessed 6 Jul 2020. 2017.

Field J, Newell D. Relationship between STarT Back screening tool and prognosis for low back pain patients receiving spinal manipulative therapy. Chiropr Man Therap. 2012;20(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-709X-20-17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Matsudaira K, Oka H, Kikuchi N, Haga Y, Sawada T, Tanaka S. Psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the STarT back tool in patients with low back pain. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0152019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152019.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Dunn KM, Hestbaek L, Cassidy JD. Low back pain across the life course. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2013;27(5):591–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2013.09.007.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Hill JC, Whitehurst DG, Lewis M, et al. Comparison of stratified primary care management for low Back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9802):1560–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60937-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Hill JC, Dunn KM, Lewis M, Mullis R, Main CJ, Foster NE, et al. A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(5):632–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23563.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Jun D, Zoe M, Johnston V, O’Leary S. Physical risk factors for developing non-specific neck pain in office workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2017;90(5):373–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-017-1205-3.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8(12):1153–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01132.x.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine. 1983;8(2):141–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Jirarattanaphochai K, Jung S, Sumananont C, Saengnipanthkul S. Reliability of the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (Thai version) for the evaluation of low back pain patients. J Med Assoc Thail. 2005;88(3):407–11.

17.

Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ. A fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain. 1993;52(2):157–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(93)90127-B.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Wiangkham T, Phungwattanakul N, Tedsombun P, Kongmee I, Suwanmongkhon W, Chidnok W. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Thai version of the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire in patients with non-specific neck pain. Scand J Pain. 2021;21(2):247–55. https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2020-0116.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Sullivan MJ, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The pain catastrophizing scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(4):524–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.524.CrossRef

20.

Youngcharoen P, Aree-Ue S, Saraboon Y. Validation of pain in catastrophizing scale Thai version in older adults with knee osteoarthritis. Innov Aging. 2017;1(Suppl 1):871. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx004.3131.CrossRefPubMedCentral

21.

Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, Neckelmann D. The validity of the hospital anxiety and depression scale: an updated literature review. J Psychosom Res. 2002;52(2):69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(01)00296-3.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Nilchaikovit T, Lotrakul M, Phisansuthideth U. Development of Thai version of hospital anxiety and depression scale in cancer patients. J Psychiatr Assoc Thai. 1996;41(1):18–30.

24.

Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life in older people: a structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(7):1651–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-1743-0.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Janssen M, Pickard AS, Golicki D, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Bilbao A, García-Pérez L, Arenaza JC, García I, Ariza-Cardiel G, Trujillo-Martín E, et al. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: reliability, validity and responsiveness. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(11):2897–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1929-x.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Kimman M, Vathesatogkit P, Woodward M, Tai ES, Thumboo J, Yamwong S, et al. Validity of the Thai EQ-5D in an occupational population in Thailand. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(6):1499–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0251-2.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0203-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Experimental designs using ANOVA. Belmont: Thomson/Brooks/Cole; 2007.

31.

Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Beckerman H, Roebroeck M, Lankhorst G, et al. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual Life Res. 2001;10(7):571–8. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013138911638.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Cohen J. Set correlation and multivariate methods. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. p. 467–530.

34.

Bruyère O, Demoulin M, Beaudart C, Hill JC, Maquet D, Genevay S, et al. Validity and reliability of the French version of the STarT Back screening tool for patients with low back pain. Spine. 2014;39(2):e123–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000062.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Abedi M, Manshadi FD, Khalkhali M, Mousavi SJ, Baghban AA, Montazeri A, et al. Translation and validation of the Persian version of the STarT Back screening tool in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Man Ther. 2015;20(6):850–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2015.04.006.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Aebischer B, Hill JC, Hilfiker R, Karstens S. German translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the STarT back screening tool. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0132068. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132068.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Karstens S, Krug K, Hill JC, Stock C, Steinhaeuser J, Szecsenyi J, et al. Validation of the German version of the STarT-Back tool (STarT-G): a cohort study with patients from primary care practices. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16(1):346. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0806-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

George SZ, Fritz JM, Childs JD. Investigation of elevated fear-avoidance beliefs for patients with low back pain: a secondary analysis involving patients enrolled in physical therapy clinical trials. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38(2):50–8. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2008.2647.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Sullivan MJ, Stanish WD. Psychologically based occupational rehabilitation: the pain-disability prevention program. Clin J Pain. 2003;19(2):97–104. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002508-200303000-00004.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Area under the ROC curve. Applied logistic regression. 3^rd ed. Massachusetts: Wiley; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118548387.CrossRef

41.

Morsø L, Kent P, Albert HB, Hill JC, Kongsted A, Manniche C. The predictive and external validity of the STarT Back tool in Danish primary care. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(8):1859–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2690-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Luan S, Min Y, Li G, Lin C, Li X, Wu S, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Chinese version of the STarT Back screening tool in patients with low back pain. Spine. 2014;39(16):e974–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000413.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Morsø L, Kent P, Manniche C, Albert HB. The predictive ability of the STarT Back screening tool in a Danish secondary care setting. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(1):120–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2861-y.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Arendt-Nielsen L, Morlion B, Perrot S, Dahan A, Dickenson A, Kress HG, et al. Assessment and manifestation of central sensitisation across different chronic pain conditions. Eur J Pain. 2018;22(2):216–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1140.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Azimi P, Shahzadi S, Azhari S, Montazeri A. A validation study of the Iranian version of STarT Back screening tool (SBST) in lumbar central canal stenosis patients. J Orthop Sci. 2014;19(2):213–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-013-0506-y.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Pilz B, Vasconcelos RA, Marcondes FB, Lodovichi SS, Mello W, Grossi DB. The Brazilian version of STarT Back screening tool-translation, cross-cultural adaptation and reliability. Braz J Phys Ther. 2014;18(5):453–61. https://doi.org/10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0028.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Bruyère O, Demoulin M, Brereton C, Humblet F, Flynn D, Hill JC, et al. Translation validation of a new Back pain screening questionnaire (the STarT Back screening tool) in French. Arch Public Health. 2012;70(1):12. https://doi.org/10.1186/0778-7367-70-12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, et al. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychol Methods. 1999;4(1):84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84.CrossRef

49.

Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC, et al. COSMIN study design checklist for patient-reported outcome measurement instruments. Amsterdam: Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics; 2019.

Title: Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Thai version of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with non-specific low back pain
Authors: Taweewat Wiangkham
Nattawan Phungwattanakul
Natthathida Thongbai
Nisa Situy
Titipa Polchaika
Isara Kongmee
Duangporn Thongnoi
Rujirat Chaisang
Wanisara Suwanmongkhon
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Anxiety
Back Pain
Back Pain
Back Pain
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04347-w

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Thai version of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with non-specific low back pain

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Evaluation of changes in shoulder balance and prediction of final shoulder imbalance during growing-rod treatment for early-onset scoliosis

Musculoskeletal pathology as an early warning sign of systemic amyloidosis: a systematic review of amyloid deposition and orthopedic surgery

A model of integrated remote monitoring and behaviour change for osteoarthritis

Measuring recovery after open lower limb fractures: combined objective functional tests and global perceived recovery outperform narrower metrics and a standard generic patient reported outcome measure

Interactions between rheumatoid arthritis antibodies are associated with the response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy

Applications of CRISPR/Cas9 in the research of malignant musculoskeletal tumors