Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Determinants of the intention for using a lumbar support among home care workers with recurrent low back pain

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In most effectiveness studies on lumbar supports for patients with low back pain, insufficient data are reported about adherence. In a secondary preventive RCT, we found beneficial effects and a good adherence among home care workers with low back pain. To target the use of lumbar supports on those patients who can benefit optimally from usage, we need to know why people are adherent. We used the attitude, social support and self-efficacy model to identify determinants for prolonged adherence to wearing a lumbar support. The strongest predictor for intending sustained use of a lumbar support was a positive attitude towards lumbar supports, explaining 41% of the variance (B = 1.31; p < 0.001). Social support and self-efficacy played a minor role. The intention for prolonged use of a lumbar support for workers with recurrent back pain was mainly explained by a positive attitude. The discomfort of a lumbar support was outweighed by perceived benefit.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action. A social cognitive theory. Erlbaum, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brown SR (1993) A primer on Q-methodology. Operant Subj 16:91–138

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cross RM (2005) Exploring attitudes: the case for Q methodology. Health Educ Res 20:206–213

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. De Vries H, Dijkstra M, Kuhlman P (1988) Self-efficacy: the third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as a predictor of behavioural intentions. Health Educ Res 3:273–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dutch College of General Practitioners N (1996) Low back pain—Lage-rugpijn (M54). http://nhg.artsennet.nl/upload/104/standaarden/M54/start.htm

  6. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jellema P, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Van Poppel MN, Bernsen RM, Koes BW (2002) Feasibility of lumbar supports for home care workers with low back pain. Occup Med (Lond) 52:317–323

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Picavet HSJ, Schouten JSAG (2003) Musculoskeletal pain in the Netherlands: prevalences, consequences and risk groups, the DMC3-study. Pain 102:167–178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC (1992) In search of how people change. Applications to addictive behaviors. Am Psychol 47:1102–1114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rafacz W, McGill SM (1996) Wearing an abdominal belt increases diastolic blood pressure. J Occup Environ Med 38:925–927

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Roelofs PD, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, van Poppel MN, Jellema P, Willemsen SP, van Tulder MW, van Mechelen W, Koes BW (2007) Lumbar supports to prevent recurrent low back pain among home care workers: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 147:685–692

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stephenson W (1935) Correlating persons instead of tests. J Pers 4:17–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Van Duijvenbode IC, Jellema P, Van Poppel MN, Van Tulder MW (2008) Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD001823

  14. Van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM (1995) A cost-of-illness study of back pain in the Netherlands. Pain 62:233–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Practice, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Pepijn D. D. M. Roelofs & Sita M. A. Bierma-Zeinstra

  2. Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Mireille N. M. van Poppel & Willem van Mechelen

  3. Body@Work, Research Center Physical Activity, Work and Health, TNO-VUmc, Hoofddorp-Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Mireille N. M. van Poppel & Willem van Mechelen

Authors
  1. Pepijn D. D. M. Roelofs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mireille N. M. van Poppel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sita M. A. Bierma-Zeinstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Willem van Mechelen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pepijn D. D. M. Roelofs.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 27 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (PDF 163 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roelofs, P.D.D.M., van Poppel, M.N.M., Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M.A. et al. Determinants of the intention for using a lumbar support among home care workers with recurrent low back pain. Eur Spine J 19, 1502–1507 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1399-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1399-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation