A significant proportion of adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) experience difficulties in physical functioning, mood and social functioning, contributing to diminished quality of life. Generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) is a risk factor for developing CMP with a striking 35-48% of patients with CMP reporting GJH. In case GJH occurs with one or more musculoskeletal manifestations such as chronic pain, trauma, disturbed proprioception and joint instability, it is referred to as generalized hypermobility spectrum disorder (G-HSD). Similar characteristics have been reported in children and adolescents with the hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS). In the management of CMP, a biopsychosocial approach is recommended as several studies have confirmed the impact of psychosocial factors in the development and maintenance of CMP. The fear-avoidance model (FAM) is a cognitive-behavioural framework that describes the role of pain-related fear as a determinant of CMP-related disability. Pubmed was used to identify existing relevant literature focussing on chronic musculoskeletal pain, generalized joint hypermobility, pain-related fear and disability. Relevant articles were cross-referenced to identify articles possibly missed during the primary screening. In this paper the current state of scientific evidence is presented for each individual component of the FAM in hypermobile adolescents with and without CMP. Based on this overview, the FAM is proposed explaining a possible underlying mechanism in the relations between GJH, pain-related fear and disability. It is assumed that GJH seems to make you more vulnerable for injury and experiencing more frequent musculoskeletal pain. But in addition, a vulnerability for heightened pain-related fear is proposed as an underlying mechanism explaining the relationship between GJH and disability. Further scientific confirmation of this applied FAM is warranted to further unravel the underlying mechanism. In explaining disability in individuals with G-HSD/hEDS, it is important to focus on both the physical components related to joint hypermobility, in tandem with the psychological components such as pain-related fear, catastrophizing thoughts and generalized anxiety.
Background. The Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire has been developed to measure patients’ beliefs of necessity of and concerns about rehabilitation. Preliminary evidence suggests that these beliefs may be associated with attendance of rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire for interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation and to examine the measurement properties of the Dutch translation including the predictive validity for dropout. Methods. The questionnaire was translated in 4 steps: forward translation from English into Dutch, achieving consensus, back translation into English, and pretesting on providers and patients. In order to establish structural validity, internal consistency, construct validity, and predictive validity of the questionnaire, 188 participants referred to a rehabilitation centre for outpatient interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation completed the questionnaire at the baseline. Dropout was measured as the number of patients starting, but not completing the programme. For reproducibility, 51 participants were recruited at another rehabilitation centre to complete the questionnaire at the baseline and one week later. Results. We confirmed the structural validity of the Treatment beliefs Questionnaire in the Dutch translation with three subscales, necessity, concerns, and perceived barriers. internal consistency was acceptable with ordinal alphas ranging from 0.66–0.87. Reproducibility was acceptable with ICC2,1 agreement ranging from 0.67–0.81. Hypotheses testing confirmed construct validity, similar to the original questionnaire. Predictive validity showed the questionnaire was unable to predict dropouts. Conclusion. Cross-cultural translation was successfully completed, and the Dutch Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire demonstrates similar psychometric properties as the original English version.
Background: The emphasis on impact factors and the quantity of publications intensifies competition between researchers. This competition was traditionally considered an incentive to produce high-quality work, but there are unwanted side-effects of this competition like publication pressure. To measure the effect of publication pressure on researchers, the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) was developed. Upon using the PPQ, some issues came to light that motivated a revision.Method: We constructed two new subscales based on work stress models using the facet method. We administered the revised PPQ (PPQr) to a convenience sample together with the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). To assess which items best measured publication pressure, we carried out a principal component analysis (PCA). Reliability was sufficient when Cronbach's alpha > 0.7. Finally, we administered the PPQr in a larger, independent sample of researchers to check the reliability of the revised version.Results: Three components were identified as 'stress', 'attitude', and 'resources'. We selected 3 × 6 = 18 items with high loadings in the three-component solution. Based on the convenience sample, Cronbach's alphas were 0.83 for stress, 0.80 for attitude, and 0.76 for resources. We checked the validity of the PPQr by inspecting the correlations with the MBI and the WDQ. Stress correlated 0.62 with MBI's emotional exhaustion. Resources correlated 0.50 with relevant WDQ subscales. To assess the internal structure of the PPQr in the independent reliability sample, we conducted the principal component analysis. The three-component solution explains 50% of the variance. Cronbach's alphas were 0.80, 0.78, and 0.75 for stress, attitude, and resources, respectively.Conclusion: We conclude that the PPQr is a valid and reliable instrument to measure publication pressure in academic researchers from all disciplinary fields. The PPQr strongly relates to burnout and could also be beneficial for policy makers and research institutions to assess the degree of publication pressure in their institute.
