Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …
New at De Gruyter

Scandinavian Journal of Pain

Official Journal of the Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain

Editor-in-Chief: Breivik, Harald

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2017: 0.84

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.401
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.452

Online
ISSN
1877-8879
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 18, Issue 4

Evaluation of implicit associations between back posture and safety of bending and lifting in people without pain

JP. Caneiro
  • Corresponding author
  • School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia
  • Body Logic Physiotherapy Clinic, 215 Nicholson Road, Shenton Park, WA 6008, Australia, Phone: +61(08)9381 7940, +61(08)433 803 683, Fax: +61(08)9381 7941, E-mail:
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Peter O’Sullivan
  • School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia
  • Body Logic Physiotherapy Clinic, Shenton Park, Australia
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Ottmar V. Lipp / Lara Mitchinson
  • School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia
  • Body Logic Physiotherapy Clinic, Shenton Park, Australia
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Nicolai Oeveraas / Priyanka Bhalvani / Richard Abrugiato / Sean Thorkildsen / Anne Smith
Published Online: 2018-07-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2018-0056

Abstract

Background and aims

Despite lack of support from recent in vivo studies, bending and lifting (especially with a round-back posture) are perceived as dangerous to the back. In light of this view, it has been proposed that pain-free people may hold a common implicit belief that is congruent with the idea that bending and lifting with a round-back represents danger to a person’s back, however this has not been evaluated. The aims of this study were: (1) to evaluate implicit associations between back posture and safety related to bending and lifting in pain-free people; (2) to explore correlations between the implicit measure and explicit measures of back beliefs, fear of movement and safety of bending; (3) to investigate self-reported qualitative appraisal of safe lifting.

Methods

Exploratory cross-sectional study including 67 pain-free participants (no pain, or average pain ≤3/10 for less than one week over the previous 12 months) (52% male), who completed an online survey containing demographic data and self-reported measures of: fear of movement (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for General population – TSK-G), back beliefs (Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire BackPAQ), and bending beliefs (Bending Safety Belief – BSB – a pictorial scale with images of a person bending/lifting with round and straight back postures). Implicit associations between back posture and safety related to bending and lifting were evaluated with the Implicit Association Test (IAT). A qualitative assessment of descriptions of safe lifting was performed.

Results

An implicit association between “danger” and “round-back” bending/lifting was evident in all participants (IATD-score=0.65 (SD=0.45; 95% CI [0.54, 0.76]). Participants’ profile indicated high fear of movement, unhelpful back beliefs, and perceived danger to round-back bending and lifting (BSBThermometer: 5.2 (SD=3.8; 95% CI [4.26, 6.13] range −10 to 10; t(67)=11.09, p<0.001). There was a moderate correlation between IAT and BSBThermometer (r=0.38, 95% CI [0.16, 0.62]). There were weaker and non-statistically significant correlations between IAT and TSK-G (r=0.28, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.47]), and between IAT and BackPAQDanger (r=0.21, 95% CI [−0.03, 0.45]). Qualitative assessment of safe lifting descriptions indicated that keeping a “straight back” and “squatting” when lifting were the most common themes.

Conclusions

Pain-free people displayed an implicit bias towards bending and lifting with a “round-back” as dangerous. Our findings support the idea that pain-free people may have a pre-existing belief about lifting, that the back is in danger when rounded. Research to evaluate the relationship between this implicit bias and lifting behaviour is indicated.

Implications

The findings of this study may have implications for ergonomic guidelines and public health information related to bending and lifting back postures. Additionally, clinicians may need to be aware of this common belief, as this may be reflected in how a person responds when they experience pain.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: implicit beliefs; explicit beliefs; pain-free people; back posture; bending; lifting

1 Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide [1], [2]. There is a pervasive belief in western society that the lower back is easy to injure and hard to heal [3], [4], [5], [6], and that bending and lifting (especially with a round-back posture) are dangerous [3], [7]. This view likely originated from interpreting the results of early in vitro studies using direct measures to investigate the effect of load on cadaveric spines [8], [9], [10], [11], and historical in vivo studies on lumbar disc pressure, in which lifting with a round-back was reported as generating greater intradiscal pressure than lifting with a straight back [12], [13], [14]; thus conferring a greater risk of disc injury with the round-back lifting technique. Since then, straight-back lifting has been recommended as the safe lifting strategy [9], [10], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Perceiving the back as vulnerable during bending and lifting [5] may influence a person’s behaviour while performing these tasks [3], [4], [18]. It has been proposed that decisions about task behaviours adopted in daily life may occur as part of a dual-process, in which explicit (deliberate, analytical) and implicit (automatic) processes are involved in the appraisal of risk versus benefit associated with the task [19], [20]. The influence of each process on task behaviour may vary depending on context, time and motivation [19], [21], [22]. Therefore, assessment of beliefs related to the bending and lifting back posture is important. Specifically, evaluating these processes in people who are not experiencing pain provides a framework un-confounded by recent experience of LBP to understand the relationship between explicit and implicit beliefs.

Self-reported questionnaires are widely used to assess back beliefs (explicit measures) [23], [24]. However, these are vulnerable to self-presentational bias and might only capture what the individual is aware of, or willing to disclose [25], [26]. In addition, these do not assess beliefs about specific postures, being more generic evaluations of back beliefs [6], [27], [28]. Implicit attitudes however, are better evaluated in a spontaneous context in which time for introspection and motivation is reduced [29]. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is commonly used to measure implicit associations in social [29], [30], health psychology [31], [32], [33], and pain [21], [34], [35] research, but to date the IAT has not been used to investigate perceptions of safety in relation to specific back postures during bending and lifting in pain-free people.

A recent study evaluating implicit associations between back posture (straight-back vs. round-back) and safety related to bending and lifting in people experiencing back pain found that irrespective of self-reported fear of bending/lifting with a round-back, people were faster to associate images of round-back bending and lifting with words representing danger, rather than safety [34]. Inferring from previous studies involving asymptomatic individuals [20], [21], [36], [37], the authors proposed this may reflect a pre-existing pervasive societal schema or belief [34], that is informed by media, healthcare providers, family, friends, and past experiences [5], [18]. Nevertheless, that study did not evaluate a pain-free group. Based on our previous work [34], we hypothesised that (i) pain-free people would display an implicit bias towards evaluating bending and lifting with a round-back as dangerous, (ii) this bias would correlate only moderately with their explicit beliefs, and (iii) pain-free people would qualitatively appraise straight-back lifting as safest.

Therefore, the aims of this study were:

  1. to evaluate implicit associations (IAT) between back posture (straight-back vs. round-back) and safety (safe vs. danger) related to bending and lifting in pain-free people;

  2. to explore correlations between implicit (IAT) and explicit measures of beliefs towards vulnerability of the back (bending safety beliefs, back beliefs, and fear of movement);

  3. to investigate participants’ qualitative appraisal of safe lifting.

2 Methods

2.1 Study design

An exploratory cross-sectional study.

2.2 Participants and recruitment

Participant recruitment and data collection commenced in August 2017 and was completed by September 2017. Participants were recruited through social media, flyers and posters on Curtin University campus as well as approached in person.

Adults over 18 years of age, who had no low back pain (LBP) within the past 12 months were included (indicated by no pain, or pain ≤3/10 on average for less than a week, on a Numerical Rating Scale – NRS – anchored on 0=no pain, 10=worst pain [38]). Participants were excluded if they had difficulty to read and understand English, or if they were trained physiotherapists or currently studying physiotherapy (as this population has already been studied [39]).

Participants were screened over the phone or in person to check if they fulfiled the inclusion criteria. An information sheet clearly explaining the study was sent via email. This study was approved by Curtin University’s Human Research Ethics Committee prior to study commencement (HRE2017-0500). All participants provided informed consent, and were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time.

2.3 Procedure

Data collection occurred in two stages: (1) Online: completion of a survey online (using Curtin University’s Qualtrics online platform); (2) Experiment: completion of a computer-based task (IAT) measuring implicit attitudes related to bending and lifting back posture and perceived safety to the spine. This was followed by completion of the BSB questionnaire (measuring explicit attitudes related to bending and lifting back posture and perceived safety to the spine). Participants were required to meet with investigators at the research laboratory in the School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science (Curtin University), or at an agreed upon external location to complete this stage. A flow chart of the study recruitment and procedure is displayed in Fig. 1.

Flow chart of the study recruitment and procedure.
Fig. 1:

Flow chart of the study recruitment and procedure.

2.4 Demographic data

Participants completed an online demographic questionnaire including age, gender, occupation, previous and current history of back pain, and information related to previous manual handling instructions received about lifting and bending. Participants also provided a subjective description of their understanding of “safe lifting” – this is described later in this section.

2.5 Outcome measures

The outcome measures assessed in this study were measures of fear of movement beliefs, back beliefs, explicit and implicit beliefs about bending/lifting posture and safety of the spine.

2.6 Implicit Association Test (IAT)

The IAT [29] is a well-established measure, which was adapted to assess associations between bending/lifting posture and safety in a group of people with back pain [34]. The IAT is a computer based test comprising seven phases, separated by pauses for the instructions in between phases [29]. This IAT is the same used in our previous work [34], which had five stimuli representing each target (“Round-back” and “Straight-back”) and attribute category (“Safe” and “Danger”). Twelve side view images of males and females standing, bending and lifting with an extended (“Straight-back”) and flexed lumbar spine (“Round-back”), were developed for this experiment after piloting with people with persistent LBP to confirm their suitability. The category “Danger” was represented by five words frequently used to describe danger associated with movement (selected from interviews with people with persistent LBP and high-fear [5], [6]). Words matching in length, frequency, and emotionality represented the category “Safe” [40]. The category “Danger” consisted of words such as damaging, vulnerable, threatening, alarming and risky. The category “Safe” consisted of works such as harmless, confident, secure, protecting and certainty.

2.6.1 Procedure

Participants were instructed to assign each stimulus displayed in the centre of the screen to its suitable category (displayed at the upper corners of the screen), by pressing the left or right “Shift” keys, as fast as possible while avoiding mistakes. On each trial the participant was given feedback (“correct” or “wrong”). The words were presented in bold, 20-point Arial font in white lower case on a black background. The images were presented embedded in a white square image of 800×800 pixels on a black background. In the first phase (20 trials), participants sorted each of the 10 images twice, into the categories “Round-back” and “Straight-back”. In the second phase (20 trials), participants sorted the 10 words twice into the categories “Safe” and “Danger”. In phases, three and four (20 and 40 trials each) participants sorted words and images into the combined categories (e.g. Danger/Round-back and Safe/Straight-back or Danger/Straight-back and Safe/Round-back). In phase five (20 trials) participants sorted images with the location of the categories switched. Phases six and seven (30 and 40 trials) reversed category combinations of phases three and four (e.g. Danger/Straight-back and Safe/Round-back or Danger/Round-back and Safe/Straight-back). As per recommendations [22], the sequence of congruent and incongruent matches during phases three and four, and six and seven were counterbalanced across participants.

2.6.2 Data processing

Each trial started with the display of a fixation cross for 1,000 ms followed by a word or image for 1,000 ms and an inter-trial interval of 1,000 ms. Response time was defined as the time elapsed from the presentation of the stimulus to when the shift key was pressed. This time was recorded and incorrect responses, responses shorter than 100 ms or longer than 1,000 ms were considered as errors. Presentation of the tasks and reaction time recording was controlled by DMDX [41]. The performance is faster when highly associated categories share a response [29]. The phases of the IAT being used in this study have been included in Online Appendix (Table 1).

A bias score (IATD-score) was calculated using the improved scoring algorithm recommended by Greenwald et al. [42] with an error penalty of two standard deviations. This was calculated as the difference between each individual’s mean response speeds on the two tasks where danger is paired with round back versus the two tasks where danger is paired with a straight back. The IATD-score could therefore be either positive or negative, with zero indicating no implicit bias in either direction, a positive score indicating implicit bias towards a round-back posture as dangerous and a negative score indicating implicit bias towards a straight-back posture as dangerous. The IAT exhibits adequate reliability and internal, construct and predictive validity [25], [43], [44].

2.7 Bending Safety Belief (BSB)

In order to assess specific beliefs related to back posture and safety of the spine during bending and lifting, the BSB was developed and used in a previous study [39] (Fig. 2). The BSB consists of a pictorial scale containing two images of a person bending forward and lifting a light object – one with a round-back and one with a straight-back. The participants were asked “how would you rate the level of risk to this person’s back?” for each image using a Likert scale (anchored on 0 meaning safe, and 10 meaning danger). These questions are clinically relevant when assessing people’s beliefs around bending, the way they bend and whether there is a perception of danger in relation to the way they bend (i.e. safe or dangerous). A thermometer score (BSBThermometer) was derived to determine the participant’s belief about safety of bending forward and lifting a light object. The danger rating of the picture illustrating bending with a “straight-back” was subtracted from the danger rating of the picture illustrating bending with a “round-back”. In line with the implicit IATD-score, a positive value therefore indicated a higher danger rating for round-back than a straight-back and a negative score indicated higher danger rating for straight-back than a round-back.

Images used for the bending and lifting safety beliefs thermometer score. (A) Round-back posture. (B) Straight-back posture.
Fig. 2:

Images used for the bending and lifting safety beliefs thermometer score. (A) Round-back posture. (B) Straight-back posture.

2.8 Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia – General (TSK-G)

The TSK was specifically designed to measure pain related fear/or fear of movement in people with pain. It has been adapted (TSK-G), to measure fear of movement beliefs in the general population and people who do not have back pain [45]. The TSK-G consists of 17 items that the participants rate on a four-point Likert scale, which ranges from “totally agree” to “totally disagree”. Scores range from 17 to 68 and as the original TSK scale, higher scores on the TSK-G indicate higher levels of fear of movement, even without the presence of pain [45]. Cronbach’s alpha for TSK-G was found to be 0.78 for people without low back pain, which is acceptable internal consistency [45].

2.9 Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (BackPAQ)

The BackPAQ was designed to assess attitudes and underlying beliefs about back pain among the general population, people with back pain and health professionals [23]. The questionnaire consists of 34 items representing five belief themes; the participant’s own back, looking after their back, back pain in general, what should be done if back pain develops, and recovery of back pain. The participants answered the items on a five-point Likert scale from “false” to “true” (intermediate labels: “Possibly False”, “Unsure”, “Possibly True”) and 11 items are reversed scored. The “True” response option normally represents beliefs that are unhelpful for recovery from back pain. Scores range from 34 to 170, with higher scores indicating more unhelpful beliefs about the back. For the purpose of this study, a subscale called “danger scale” (BackPAQDanger) was formed by using 14 items from the questionnaire. These items are questions 1–12, 14 and 21 as they are representative of “vulnerability” and “protection” themes. These themes emerged from the qualitative study which the BackPAQ originated from [23]. Scores range from 14 to 70, with higher scores indicating greater perception that the back is danger, for example, that the back needs protection as it is easily injured. The total score of the “danger scale” was used to find its correlation with other explicit and implicit scores. The 34-item long form of the questionnaire has been shown to have acceptable internal consistency (α=0.70; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.73), construct validity and test-retest reliability [23], [46].

2.9.1 Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to describe the sample. A one-sample t-test was used to assess the degree and direction of deviation of the IATD-score and BSBThermometer score from zero. Additionally, Cohen’s d was calculated to provide a standardised effect size to assist in the interpretation of the size of the estimated bias. Pearson’s correlation coefficients, with associated 95% confidence interval estimates, were used to assess the correlation between implicit and explicit beliefs. Linearity of associations and absence of influential outliers were confirmed by visual assessment of scatterplots. SPSS version 24 statistical software was used for statistical analysis (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24, IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). An a priori power calculation estimated a sample of 60 participants would have 80% power to detect a standardised IATD-score difference from 0 of at least ±0.35 and correlations between implicit and explicit measures of ±0.35 or greater (two-sided tests, α=0.05).

2.10 Qualitative appraisal of “safe lifting”

A qualitative appraisal of participants’ views regarding “safe lifting” was evaluated by subjective descriptions of how safe lifting should be performed. Participant’s qualitative description of their understanding of a “safe” lifting technique (n=52/67) were analysed by two independent investigators and grouped into common themes, and the frequency of these themes were compared.

3 Results

3.1 Demographics

Sixty-eight pain-free participants were included in the study. One participant was excluded due to a computer error during the experiment, becoming unable to complete the IAT as required, therefore 67 participants were included in final analysis (52% male). The mean (SD) age was 29 years (9.44; range 18–60). The participants reported their occupation as office workers (54%), students (19%), manual workers (11%), or other (16%). Eleven participants (16%) stated a previous episode of lower back pain, with the remaining 56 participants (84%) having no history of back pain. Sixty participants (90%) stated receiving previous manual handling instruction and 52 participants (78%) provided subjective information of their understanding of “safe” lifting technique.

3.2 Beliefs

3.2.1 Implicit measure

The mean IATD-score was 0.65 (SD=0.45; 95% CI [0.54, 0.76] range −0.88 to 1.50), which was significantly greater than zero (t(67)=11.76, p<0.001). The magnitude of this estimated effect size as measured by Cohen’s d was 1.44. This indicates a strong implicit bias of the sample towards the association between images of “round-back” bending/lifting, rather than “straight-back”, with words representing “danger”, rather than “safety”.

3.2.2 Explicit measures

The mean level of fear of movement (TSK-G) was 36.5 (SD=5.6; range 21–49). The mean level of back pain beliefs (BackPAQ) was 105.5 (SD=13.8; range 63–139) and the mean of the subscale BackPAQDanger was 48.5 (SD=6.5; range 22–61). The mean of beliefs related to back posture and safety (BSB Thermometer) was 5.2 (SD=3.8; 95% CI [4.26, 6.13] range −10 to 10). The BSBThermometer was significantly greater than zero (t(67)=11.09, p<0.001), with the positive value indicating a higher danger ratings for round-back bending and lifting, rather than straight-back.

3.2.3 Associations between implicit and explicit measures

There was a moderate correlation between IATD-score and BSB Thermometer (r=0.38, 95% CI [0.16, 0.62]). There were weaker and non-statistically significant correlations between IATD-score and TSK-G (r=0.28, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.47]), between IATD-score and BackPAQ (r=0.21, 95% CI [−0.03, 0.45]), and between IATD-score and BackPAQDanger (r=0.22, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.46]).

3.3 Subjective description of “safe” lifting

Fifty-two participants (n=52/67, 77.6%) described their understanding of a “safe” lifting technique. The most common theme with respect to back posture was keeping a straight back, which included phrases such as “keep back straight”, “keep a flat back”, “don’t bend back” or “chest up” (n=27/52, 52%). Two participants were classified to the neutral back theme as they mentioned “neutral spine” (n=2/52, 4%), whilst one participant mentioned “bending over naturally” (n=1/52, 2%) potentially indicating using a flexed spine and therefore was classified as round back. If there was uncertainty regarding what back posture participants were describing, such as “good back position”, then they were not classified into the aforementioned themes but were included in the table (Online Appendix – Table 2).

Another common theme was related to squatting, which included “bend knees”/“squat” (n=35/52, 67%) and “use legs” (n=22/52, 42%). In combination 88.5% (n=46/52) of the participants mentioned either or both phrases. Twenty-two participants only described the legs, without a mention of spinal postures (22/52, 42%).

It was common for descriptions to include both keeping a straight back and squatting, for example: “Lifting from the legs rather than the back. Keep the back as straight as possible, bend your knees and lift through the legs” (P09, male, 22yo, office worker), “Keep your back straight and bend at the knees” (P55, male, 27yo, manual worker), and “Back straight, chest up, weight close to body and wide base of support” (P59, male 22yo, exercise physiologist).

The one participant who mentioned “bending over naturally” had the following response: “Many years ago (at least 30) I was instructed to bend at the knees and keep back straight, using the strength of my legs to do the lifting. In recent years I have been instructed to bend over naturally and pick up the object” (P31, female, 53yo, office worker). See Online Appendix (Table 2) for detailed table outlining all subjective descriptions of “safe” lifting technique grouped into themes.

4 Discussion

The primary aim of this study was to test a hypothesis generated in our previous work [34] by evaluating implicit associations between images of bending and lifting with a round-back posture (vs. straight-back) and words meaning safety (vs. danger) in pain-free people. Results from the implicit task (IAT), indicate that participants were faster to associate images of bending and lifting with a “round-back” with words representing “danger”, rather than with words representing “safety”. This means the sample displayed an implicit bias towards bending and lifting with a “round-back” as dangerous. These results support our previous hypothesis, which proposed that pain-free people have a pervasive pre-existing belief [34]. Critically, our results indicate this belief appears to be specifically related to “how” a person performs bending and lifting (i.e. back posture adopted during task).

Our results are consistent with a previous study. Goubert et al. [21] investigated implicit attitudes of pain-free people and found that they have a negative implicit attitude towards back-stressing activities. The authors used a variety of tasks (e.g. driving a car, hanging up a coat and, digging in the garden) and negative words (e.g. war, AIDS), making their research question more generic, and not specific to back posture during bending and lifting tasks. Notwithstanding, their results support the notion that pain-free people perceive the back as vulnerable both explicitly and implicitly [21]. They also assessed people with persistent LBP, and found no implicit bias. The authors therefore suggested, the experience of pain was not the driver of this bias [21]. Leeuw et al. [20] also assessed implicit attitudes in people with and without persistent LBP. Whilst the groups differed in self-reported fear of movement, the study did not find an implicit association between words representing back-stressing movements (e.g. falling, bending, pushing, lifting, running) and threat-related words (e.g. fatal, warning, terrible, dangerous, horrible) in either group [20]. In addition, people with and without pain did not differ in their level of implicit fear of movement [20].

Recently, our group investigated implicit attitudes of people with back pain, specifically evaluating beliefs about back posture during bending and lifting [34]. This study found that irrespective of their self-reported fear of bending/lifting with a round-back, all participants had a similar implicit bias towards bending and lifting with a “round-back” as dangerous [34]. Additionally, a study investigating the implicit and explicit beliefs of physiotherapists (pain-free in the year of the experiment), also found an implicit danger bias towards bending and lifting with a round-back [39]. The results of these studies support the hypothesis that this implicit “danger bias” to round-back bending and lifting may be pervasive in people with LBP and in health care workers, however this implicit bias had not been specifically investigated in a pain-free population. Collectively, these results support the idea that pain-free people may have a pre-existing schema. The results of the current study expand on this knowledge, providing evidence that this schema may be specifically biased to bending and lifting with round-back postures, supporting the idea of a “round-back dangerschema.

A secondary aim was to explore if implicit measures (IAT) correlated with explicit measures of back beliefs (BackPAQDanger), fear of movement (TSK-G) and safety of bending (BSB). Sample profiling indicated that participants generally displayed negative beliefs about the back, high levels of pain-related fear, and perceived danger related to bending and lifting with a round-back posture. There was a moderate statistically significant correlation between the implicit measure and the explicit measure specifically assessing beliefs related to back posture and safety of the spine during bending and lifting (BSB). There were only weak, non-statistically significant correlations with more explicit beliefs related to fear of movement (TSK-G) and beliefs about back (BackPAQDanger), which are less specific to back posture. This is in line with research of implicit measures, which reports that correlations are likely to be higher when the specific constructs assessed by both measures (implicit and explicit) have conceptual correspondence [22]. This was the case in the current study, with both the IAT and the BSB assessing back posture and safety.

Finally, a qualitative appraisal of subjective descriptions of ‘safe’ lifting was performed. This revealed that descriptions related to a “straight back” and “squatting” were the most common, with considerably fewer participants describing a “neutral” or a “round-back” posture. This supports our findings that pain-free people perceived round-back lifting as dangerous in both the implicit (IAT) and the more specific explicit measure (BSB). Furthermore, a recent study by Nolan et al. [7] investigated the beliefs of manual handling advisors and physiotherapists regarding “safe” lifting technique. In this study, the participants were presented with images of four different lifting techniques, and asked to choose the one perceived as the safest and justify their choice. The results align with the current study, with the majority of the participants preferring a straight-back lifting posture [7]. These straight-back postures were preferred on the basis that they avoided rounding the back, indicating a perception that “round-back” is dangerous. Additionally, the participants who preferred a straight-back posture, tended to have more negative back beliefs [7]. This provides further support for the idea that beliefs about the danger of “round-back” postures are common in western society.

This pervasive belief about back posture and danger makes sense when considered in context of the information available in the public domain. As illustrated by the subjective descriptions in this study (Online Appendix – Table 2), people are commonly presented with “safety” regulations about the back and which posture to adopt when bending and lifting. A “straight-back” during bending and lifting is often advocated as ergonomically safe, whilst a “round-back” is often viewed as dangerous [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. This belief likely stem from extrapolations from the results of earlier in vitro [9] and in vivo [12], [13], [14] studies, which suggest that flexion of the lumbar spine (i.e. round-back posture) is dangerous and should be avoided. The early seminal in vivo studies reported that lifting with a round-back generated greater intradiscal pressure than lifting with a straight back [12], [13], [14]. Greater intradiscal pressure was rationalised as meaning a greater risk of disc injury with the round-back lifting technique [12], [13], [14]. Later in vitro studies reinforced this view, suggesting the cadaveric spine has a limited number of bends (flexion cycles) before disc failure occurs [9]. Since then, straight-back lifting has been recommended as the safe lifting strategy [15], [16]. However, later in his career Nachemson (1981), the author of the original in vivo studies published a summary on several studies on intradiscal pressure, concluding that the difference between the two lifting techniques were only minor [52], [53] and provided no basis for ergonomic interventions to be advocating straight-back lifting [53], [54]. Furthermore, recent studies indicate there is a lack of in vivo evidence [50], [51], [52], [55], [56] that support the notion of using a “straight-back” in preference to a “round-back” to reduce risk of LBP. Biomechanical studies have found no significant differences in spinal loads and compression forces between the two postures [52], [55], [56], [57]. Studies have also been unable to establish a link between lifting and causation of low back pain [49], [50], [51], [57]. Additionally, it has been shown that squat lifting (straight-back with deeper knee bend) is a less efficient lifting technique, when compared to adopting a more round-back posture during lifting heavier loads [58]. In fact, pain-free forest workers were reported to change their lifting strategies from squat lifting to round-back lifting in order to save energy during a physically strenuous day involving repetitive lifting [15]. This change in strategy was not accompanied with changes in lumbar load moments [15]. Further, a recent systematic review reported no clear evidence supporting manual handling training in the prevention and treatment of LBP in nurses [59].

Together, the results of this study and others suggest that pain-free people may have a common belief that the back is vulnerable and that bending and lifting with a “round-back” is dangerous [3], [4], [5], [6], [18]. The common-sense model of self-regulation [60], [61] suggests that a person’s pre-existing schema influences their behavioural response when they experience pain. While speculative, our previous study investigating implicit beliefs in people experiencing back pain proposed that if pain-free people did in fact hold a similar implicit danger bias, as it was reported in the current study (“round-back danger”), then an experience of pain during bending/lifting may activate a “protect the backschema [34]. Protective behaviour demonstrated by people in pain would therefore not be irrational, but rather a common-sense response given their underlying implicit danger bias. However, it is not known if this implicit bias influence bending and lifting behaviour. This relationship is worth investigating because if implicit bias does influence behaviour, then investigating if it is amenable to change in both pain-free and pain populations, will also be of value.

This study was unique in that it investigated a group of people without current pain or pain in the last year, with the majority of participants reporting having never experienced back pain. The results therefore provide an insight into “general population” beliefs. However, a limitation of this study is that only a small sample of participants from an Australian city was investigated. Investigating a larger and more diverse population across different geographical areas and cultures (western vs. eastern), may provide a more complete understanding of general population beliefs and the influence of culture on beliefs and behaviour [62], [63].

5 Conclusion

The results of this study provide insight in beliefs of people without low back pain. Pain-free participants displayed an implicit association between images of “round-back” bending and lifting postures and words representing “danger”. Importantly, our findings support the idea that pain-free people may have a pre-existing belief that the back is in danger when rounded during bending and lifting. To understand the behavioural implications of these findings, further research evaluating the influence of implicit bias on behaviour in both pain-free and people in pain, may be worth pursuing.

6 Implications

The findings of this study may have implications for ergonomic guidelines and public health information related to bending and lifting back postures. Additionally, clinicians may need to be aware of this common belief in society, as this pre-existing schema may be reflected in how a person responds when they experience pain and present for treatment. Future research is warranted to evaluate the relationship between implicit attitudes and task behaviour in people both with and without pain.

References

  • [1]

    Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, Lozano R, Michaud C, Ezzati M, Shibuya K, Salomon JA, Abdalla S, Aboyans V, Abraham J, Ackerman I, Aggarwal R, Ahn SY, Ali MK, Alvarado M, Anderson HR, Anderson LM, Andrews KG, Atkinson C, et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012;380:2163–96. Google Scholar

  • [2]

    Balague F, Mannion AF, Pellise F, Cedraschi C. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet 2012;379:482–91. Google Scholar

  • [3]

    Darlow B, Perry M, Stanley J, Mathieson F, Melloh M, Baxter GD, Dowell A. Cross-sectional survey of attitudes and beliefs about back pain in New Zealand. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004725. Google Scholar

  • [4]

    Darlow B, Dean S, Perry M, Mathieson F, Baxter GD, Dowell A. Easy to harm, hard to heal: patient views about the back. Spine 2015;40:842–50. Google Scholar

  • [5]

    Bunzli S, Smith A, Schutze R, O’Sullivan P. Beliefs underlying pain-related fear and how they evolve: a qualitative investigation in people with chronic back pain and high pain-related fear. BMJ Open 2015;5:e008847. Google Scholar

  • [6]

    Bunzli S, Smith A, Watkins R, Schutze R, O’Sullivan P. What do people who score highly on the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia really believe?: A mixed methods investigation in people with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Clin J Pain 2015;31:621–32. Google Scholar

  • [7]

    Nolan D, O’Sullivan K, Stephenson J, O’Sullivan P, Lucock M. What do physiotherapists and manual handling advisors consider the safest lifting posture, and do back beliefs influence their choice? Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2018;33:35–40. Google Scholar

  • [8]

    Adams MA, Hutton WC. The mechanics of prolapsed intervertebral disc. Int Orthop 1982;6:249–53. Google Scholar

  • [9]

    Callaghan JP, McGill SM. Intervertebral disc herniation: studies on a porcine model exposed to highly repetitive flexion/extension motion with compressive force. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2001;16:28–37. Google Scholar

  • [10]

    Gallagher S, Marras WS. Tolerance of the lumbar spine to shear: a review and recommended exposure limits. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2012;27:973–8. Google Scholar

  • [11]

    Koblauch H. Low back load in airport baggage handlers. Denmark: Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology, University of Copenhagen, 2015. Google Scholar

  • [12]

    Nachemson A. The influence of spinal movements on the lumbar intradiscal pressure and on the tensil stresses in the annulus fibrosus. Acta Orthop Scand 1963;33:183–207. Google Scholar

  • [13]

    Nachemson A. The load on lumbar disks in different positions of the body. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1966;45:107–22. Google Scholar

  • [14]

    Nachemson A. The effect of forward leaning on lumbar intradiscal pressure. Acta Orthop Scand 1965;35:314–28. Google Scholar

  • [15]

    Hagen KB, Harms-Ringdahl K. Ratings of perceived thigh and back exertion in forest workers during repetitive lifting using squat and stoop techniques. Spine 1994;19:2511–7. Google Scholar

  • [16]

    Anderson CK, Chaffin DB. A biomechanical evaluation of five lifting techniques. Appl Ergon 1986;17:2–8. Google Scholar

  • [17]

    Nachemson A. Towards a better understanding of low-back pain: a review of the mechanics of the lumbar disc. Rheumatol Rehabil 1975;14:129–43. Google Scholar

  • [18]

    Darlow B. Beliefs about back pain: the confluence of client, clinician and community. Int J Osteopath Med 2016;20:53–61. Google Scholar

  • [19]

    de Jong JR, Vlaeyen JW, Onghena P, Goossens ME, Geilen M, Mulder H. Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain: education or exposure in vivo as mediator to fear reduction? Clin J Pain 2005;21:9–17; discussion 69–72. Google Scholar

  • [20]

    Leeuw M, Peters ML, Wiers RW, Vlaeyen JW. Measuring fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain using implicit measures. Cogn Behav Ther 2007;36:52–64. Google Scholar

  • [21]

    Goubert L, Crombez G, Hermans D, Vanderstraeten G. Implicit attitude towards pictures of back-stressing activities in pain-free subjects and patients with low back pain: an affective priming study. Eur J Pain 2003;7:33–42. Google Scholar

  • [22]

    Hofmann W, Gawronski B, Gschwendner T, Le H, Schmitt M. A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2005;31:1369–85. Google Scholar

  • [23]

    Darlow B, Perry M, Mathieson F, Stanley J, Melloh M, Marsh R, Baxter GD, Dowell A. The development and exploratory analysis of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ). BMJ Open 2014;4:e005251. Google Scholar

  • [24]

    George SZ, Valencia C, Beneciuk JM. A psychometric investigation of fear-avoidance model measures in patients with chronic low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010;40:197–205. Google Scholar

  • [25]

    Nosek BA, Hawkins CB, Frazier RS. Implicit social cognition: from measures to mechanisms. Trends Cogn Sci 2011;15:152–9. Google Scholar

  • [26]

    Fazio RH, Olson MA. Implicit measures in social cognition. research: their meaning and use. Annu Rev Psychol 2003;54:297–327. Google Scholar

  • [27]

    George SZ, Valencia C, Zeppieri G, Jr, Robinson ME. Development of a self-report measure of fearful activities for patients with low back pain: the fear of daily activities questionnaire. Phys Ther 2009;89:969–79. Google Scholar

  • [28]

    Leeuw M, Goossens ME, van Breukelen GJ, Boersma K, Vlaeyen JW. Measuring perceived harmfulness of physical activities in patients with chronic low back pain: the Photograph Series of Daily Activities—short electronic version. J Pain 2007;8:840–9. Google Scholar

  • [29]

    Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JL. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998;74:1464–80. Google Scholar

  • [30]

    Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol Rev 1995;102:4–27. Google Scholar

  • [31]

    Chapman EN, Kaatz A, Carnes M. Physicians and implicit bias: how doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities. J Gen Intern Med 2013;28:1504–10. Google Scholar

  • [32]

    Grumm M, Erbe K, von Collani G, Nestler S. Automatic processing of pain: the change of implicit pain associations after psychotherapy. Behav Res Ther 2008;46:701–14. Google Scholar

  • [33]

    Sabin JA, Greenwald AG. The influence of implicit bias on treatment recommendations for 4 common pediatric conditions: pain, urinary tract infection, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and asthma. Am J Public Health 2012;102:988–95. Google Scholar

  • [34]

    Caneiro JP, O’Sullivan P, Smith A, Moseley GL, Lipp OV. Implicit evaluations and physiological threat responses in people with persistent low back pain and fear of bending. Scand J Pain 2017;17:355–66. Google Scholar

  • [35]

    Van Ryckeghem DM, De Houwer J, Van Bockstaele B, Van Damme S, De Schryver M, Crombez G. Implicit associations between pain and self-schema in patients with chronic pain. Pain 2013;154:2700–6. Google Scholar

  • [36]

    Barke A, Preis MA, Schmidt-Samoa C, Baudewig J, Kroner-Herwig B, Dechent P. Neural correlates differ in high and low fear-avoidant chronic low back pain patients when imagining back-straining movements. J Pain 2016;17:930–43. Google Scholar

  • [37]

    Taylor AM, Harris AD, Varnava A, Phillips R, Taylor JO, Hughes O, Wilkes AR, Hall JE, Wise RG. A functional magnetic resonance imaging study to investigate the utility of a picture imagination task in investigating neural responses in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain to daily physical activity photographs. PLoS One 2015;10:e0141133. Google Scholar

  • [38]

    Dionne CE, Dunn KM, Croft PR, Nachemson AL, Buchbinder R, Walker BF, Wyatt M, Cassidy JD, Rossignol M, Leboeuf-Yde C, Hartvigsen J, Leino-Arjas P, Latza U, Reis S, Gil Del Real MT, Kovacs FM, Oberg B, Cedraschi C, Bouter LM, Koes BW, et al. A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies. Spine 2008;33:95–103. Google Scholar

  • [39]

    Caneiro JP, O’Sullivan P, Smith A, Ovrebekk IR, Tozer L, Williams M, Teng MLW, Lipp, O. V. Physiotherapists have an implicit bias to bending and lifting with a round back. World Congress Phys Ther 2017. Available at: www.abstractstosubmit.com/wcpt2017/abstracts/

  • [40]

    Mallan KM, Lipp OV. Does emotion modulate the blink reflex in human conditioning? Startle potentiation during pleasant and unpleasant cues in the picture-picture paradigm. Psychophysiology 2007;44:737–48. Google Scholar

  • [41]

    Forster KI, Forster JC. DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2003;35:116–24. Google Scholar

  • [42]

    Greenwald AG, Nosek BA, Banaji MR. Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. J Pers Soc Psychol 2003;85:197–216. Google Scholar

  • [43]

    Greenwald AG, Poehlman TA, Uhlmann EL, Banaji MR. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. J Pers Soc Psychol 2009;97:17–41. Google Scholar

  • [44]

    Nosek BA, Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2005;31:166–80. Google Scholar

  • [45]

    Houben RM, Leeuw M, Vlaeyen JW, Goubert L, Picavet HS. Fear of movement/injury in the general population: factor structure and psychometric properties of an adapted version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. J Behav Med 2005;28:415–24. Google Scholar

  • [46]

    Moran RW, Rushworth WM, Mason J. Investigation of four self-report instruments (FABT, TSK-HC, Back-PAQ, HC-PAIRS) to measure healthcare practitioners’ attitudes and beliefs toward low back pain: reliability, convergent validity and survey of New Zealand osteopaths and manipulative physiotherapists. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2017;32(Supplement C):44–50. Google Scholar

  • [47]

    Straker LM. A review of research on techniques for lifting low-lying objects: 1. Criteria for evaluation. Work 2002;19:9–18. Google Scholar

  • [48]

    Straker LM. A review of research on techniques for lifting low-lying objects: 2. Evidence for a correct technique. Work 2003;20:83–96. Google Scholar

  • [49]

    van Dieen JH, Hoozemans MJ, Toussaint HM. Stoop or squat: a review of biomechanical studies on lifting technique. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 1999;14:685–96. Google Scholar

  • [50]

    Wai EK, Roffey DM, Bishop P, Kwon BK, Dagenais S. Causal assessment of occupational bending or twisting and low back pain: results of a systematic review. Spine J 2010;10:76–88. Google Scholar

  • [51]

    Wai EK, Roffey DM, Bishop P, Kwon BK, Dagenais S. Causal assessment of occupational lifting and low back pain: results of a systematic review. Spine J 2010;10:554–66. Google Scholar

  • [52]

    Dreischarf M, Shirazi-Adl A, Arjmand N, Rohlmann A, Schmidt H. Estimation of loads on human lumbar spine: a review of in vivo and computational model studies. J Biomech 2016;49:833–45. Google Scholar

  • [53]

    Nachemson AL. Disc pressure measurements. Spine 1981;6:93–7. Google Scholar

  • [54]

    Nachemson AL. Advances in low-back pain. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985;200:266–78. Google Scholar

  • [55]

    Dreischarf M, Rohlmann A, Graichen F, Bergmann G, Schmidt H. In vivo loads on a vertebral body replacement during different lifting techniques. J Biomech 2016;49:890–5. Google Scholar

  • [56]

    Kingma I, Faber GS, van Dieen JH. How to lift a box that is too large to fit between the knees. Ergonomics 2010;53:1228–38. Google Scholar

  • [57]

    Kwon BK, Roffey DM, Bishop PB, Dagenais S, Wai EK. Systematic review: occupational physical activity and low back pain. Occup Med (Oxford, England) 2011;61:541–8. Google Scholar

  • [58]

    Holder L. The effect of lumbar posture and pelvis fixation on back extensor torque and paravertebral muscle activation (Doctoral dissertation), Auckland University of Technology; 2013. Google Scholar

  • [59]

    Van Hoof W, O’Sullivan K, O’Keeffe M, Verschueren S, O’Sullivan P, Dankaerts W. The efficacy of interventions for low back pain in nurses: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2018;77:222–31. Google Scholar

  • [60]

    Leventhal H, Meyer D, Nerenz D. The common sense model of illness danger. In: Rachman S, editor. Medical Psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Pergamon, 1980:7–30. Google Scholar

  • [61]

    Leventhal H, Phillips LA, Burns E. The Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM): a dynamic framework for understanding illness self-management. J Behav Med 2016;39:935–46. Google Scholar

  • [62]

    Kroska EB. A meta-analysis of fear-avoidance and pain intensity: the paradox of chronic pain. Scand J Pain 2016;13:43–58. Google Scholar

  • [63]

    Vlaeyen JWS. The intricate relationship amongst pain intensity, fear and avoidance. Scand J Pain 2016;13:128–9. Google Scholar

Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2018-0056).

About the article

Received: 2018-03-13

Revised: 2018-06-21

Accepted: 2018-06-21

Published Online: 2018-07-09

Published in Print: 2018-10-25


Authors’ Statements

Research funding: JP. Caneiro is supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award (APA) and Curtin University Postgraduate (CUPS) Scholarships.

Conflict of interest: Peter O’Sullivan receives speaker fees for workshops on pain management. All the other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Informed consent: All participants provided informed consent, and were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time.

Ethics approval: This study was approved by Curtin University’s Human Research Ethics Committee prior to study commencement (HRE2017-0500).


Citation Information: Scandinavian Journal of Pain, Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages 719–728, ISSN (Online) 1877-8879, ISSN (Print) 1877-8860, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2018-0056.

Export Citation

©2018 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. All rights reserved..Get Permission

Supplementary Article Materials

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Jens Ivar Brox
Scandinavian Journal of Pain, 2018, Volume 18, Number 4, Page 563

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in