Question: In people with sciatica in primary care, can a single question be used to predict outcome at 1 year followup as accurately as validated questionnaires on kinesiophobia, disability, and health-related quality of life? Design: Observational study within a randomised cohort. Participants: 135 people with sciatica in primary care. Outcome measures: Kinesiophobia was measured with the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), disability with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), and health-related quality of life with the EQ-5D and the 36-item Short Form (SF-36) Physical Component Summary. Participants also answered a newly devised substitute question for each questionnaire on an 11-point numerical rating scale. Global perceived effect and severity of leg pain were recorded at 1 year follow-up. Results: The correlation coefficient between the TSK and its substitute question was r = 0.46 (p< 0.001). The substitute question was better at predicting pain severity in the leg at 1 year follow-up than the TSK (addition of explained variation of 11% versus 4% in a logistic regression analysis). The TSK and its substitute question did not significantly differ in their prediction of global perceived effect at 1 year follow-up. The other substitute questions and both the RDQ and EQ-5D did not contribute significantly to one or both of their prediction models. Conclusion: It may be feasible to replace the TSK by a single substitute question for predicting outcome in people with sciatica in primary care. The other substitute questions did not consistently predict outcome at 1 year follow-up.

Additional Metadata
Keywords Disability evaluation, Outcome assessment (health care), Quality of life, Questionnaires, Sciatica
Persistent URL,
Journal Journal of Physiotherapy
Verwoerd, A.J.H, Luijsterburg, P.A.J, Timman, R, Koes, B.W, & Verhagen, A.P. (2012). A single question was as predictive of outcome as the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia in people with sciatica: An observational study. Journal of Physiotherapy, 58(4), 249–254. doi:10.1016/S1836-9553(12)70126-1