Skip to main content
Download PDF

Generalization of fear of movement-related pain and avoidance behavior as predictors of work resumption after back surgery: a study protocol for a prospective study (WABS)

BMC Psychology volume 10, Article number: 39 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Previous studies indicated that about 20% of the individuals undergoing back surgery are unable to return to work 3 months to 1 year after surgery. The specific factors that predict individual trajectories in postoperative pain, recovery, and work resumption are largely unknown. The aim of this study is to identify modifiable predictors of work resumption after back surgery.

Methods

In this multisite, prospective, longitudinal study, 300 individuals with radicular pain undergoing a lumbar decompression will be followed until 1-year post-surgery. Prior to surgery, participants will perform a computer task to assess fear of movement-related pain, avoidance behavior, and their generalization to novel situations. Before and immediately after surgery, participants will additionally complete questionnaires to assess fear of movement-related pain, avoidance behavior, optimism, expectancies towards recovery and work resumption, and the duration and severity of the pain. Six weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery, they will again complete questionnaires to assess sustainable work resumption, pain severity, disability, and quality of life. The primary hypothesis is that (generalization of) fear of movement-related pain and avoidance behavior will negatively affect sustainable work resumption after back surgery. Second, we hypothesize that (generalization of) fear of movement-related pain and avoidance behavior, negative expectancies towards recovery and work resumption, longer pain duration, and more severe pain before the surgery will negatively affect work resumption, pain severity, disability, and quality of life after back surgery. In contrast, optimism and positive expectancies towards recovery and work resumption are expected to predict more favorable work resumption, better quality of life, and lower levels of pain severity and disability after back surgery.

Discussion

With the results of this research, we hope to contribute to the development of strategies for early identification of risk factors and appropriate guidance and interventions before and after back surgery.

Trial registration The study was preregistered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04747860 on February 9, 2021.

Peer Review reports

Background

Low back pain

Low back pain (LBP) is globally a common health condition and is one of the main reasons people consult a physician [1,2,3,4]. It is considered as “pain, muscle tension or stiffness localized below the costal margin and above the inferior gluteal folds” [5, p. 1]. Acute LBP is a highly prevalent symptom, affecting 80% of the population at least once in their lifetime [6]. In 10% of the cases, LBP may be caused by a structural pathology such as a fracture, an inflammatory disorder, or a deformity [7]. The most common form of LBP, however, is pain in the lumbar area without a known pathoanatomical problem [8, 9]. For most individuals, the clinical course of LBP is acute and benign [10, 11], with them recovering spontaneously within a few weeks [12]. However, in about one-third of the individuals the pain persists beyond healing time and becomes chronic [11, 13, 14]. Chronic pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs for more than 3–6 months [15, 16]. Due to its persistence, chronic pain can have a detrimental impact on different aspects of life. A subgroup of individuals experiences difficulties in daily life activities and physical impairment [17, 18]. In 2015, the worldwide point prevalence of individuals affected by activity-limiting LBP was estimated at 7.3% [19]. Globally, LBP is also one of the leading causes of years lived with disability [20]. Chronic pain may also affect the psychological wellbeing and mental health of individuals, and often coexists with anxiety and depression [16, 21, 22]. Individuals might, in addition, experience social isolation due to their limitations in maintaining social, family, and sexual relationships [16, 17, 23]. On top of that, chronic pain is a major source of economic burden. Previous studies found that LBP is one of the main reasons for activity limitation, work absence, and even work loss [24,25,26,27,28,29]. Besides the personal burden, chronic pain entails a huge economic cost for the society due to reduced work efficiency, the use of health care, and sick leave [24, 28, 30,31,32,33,34].

Back surgery

Over the past decades, the number of back surgeries in Belgium substantially increased. Du Bois et al. [35] reported a rise of 44% from 2001 through 2009 in Belgium. In the past decade, this increase was less pronounced and dropped to 0.44% between 2009 and 2019. From 2017 until 2019, there was even a small decrease of 1.40% [36]. Nevertheless, the number of spine surgeries is still considerable. In 2019, a total of 38,123 spine surgeries were performed. There is however no unequivocal evidence that surgery is the best solution, especially for the treatment of LBP [37]. Studies have found that even after anatomically successful surgery, 10 to 40% of the individuals continue to report pain complaints [38]. A subgroup of individuals undergoing surgery will also be unable to return to work after back surgery. Rates of postoperative return to work differ strongly and vary between 50 to 90% [39]. Recent studies reported that 82% of the individuals were able to return to work 3 months after back surgery [40, 41]. Also in Belgium, Du Bois and Donceel [42] found that 20% of the individuals were unable to resume work 1 year after a lumbar discectomy surgery. Although this considers only a minority of individuals with back pain and radicular pain, they represent a considerable burden to the society [13]. In those individuals, the complaints do not resolve despite anatomical successful surgery. Possible reasons are that psychological and social factors might overrule the effects of surgery, or the specific type of surgery might not have been the right solution for that particular spinal pathology. However, the mechanisms underlying the transition from acute to chronic pain remain poorly understood.

Mechanisms of chronic pain

The central premise of the current research project is the clinical observation that for some individuals, there seems to be no clear association between recovery of anatomical damage and reduction of pain complaints. The term "Failed Back Surgery Syndrome" (FBSS), for example, refers to persistent axial or peripheral pain following an anatomically successful surgical procedure [43]. In addition, people with chronic back pain often have no identifiable anatomical lesions, or the associated pain severity, affective distress, and disability levels dominate the pain problem [44]. So overall, biological models that seek an explanation in structural and biomedical abnormalities cannot sufficiently explain chronic pain and the functional disability it causes [45,46,47]. Recovery of complaints should therefore not only be explained by the nature of the injury and the surgical intervention itself, but also by psychological, social, and contextual factors.

Fear-avoidance model of chronic pain

Over the years, theories considering psychological factors, such as individual beliefs and behavior, have been proposed. An influential theoretical model in this area is the fear-avoidance (FA) model [48,49,50,51]. The FA model proposes that chronic pain may develop when pain-related fear and avoidance behavior persist beyond healing time, or when protective responses generalize to novel stimuli (generalization stimuli) resembling the original fear-eliciting stimulus. More specifically, the model proposes that people who interpret pain as a sign of bodily threat, prioritize control of pain that does not go away, leading to fear and avoidance. When negative affect and harm expectations are present, they might increase the engagement in pain control. In the acute pain stage, these protective behaviors serve to reduce or eliminate a justified threat to the body and are considered adaptive. In individuals with chronic pain, however, a pathoanatomical threat (such as injury or spinal pathology) is usually absent, and the costs of avoidance behavior may start to outweigh its benefits. In addition, fear and avoidance are often not restricted to movements/activities that were initially associated with pain but extend to a range of novel (generalization) stimuli. In essence, this stimulus generalization is adaptive because it minimizes the necessity to learn everything anew [52], and contains the ability to detect similarities between related stimuli which may contribute to reducing harm in a dynamic environment [53, 54]. Yet, it also bears an increased risk to respond to false alarm threats (“safe stimuli”), which possibly leads to persistent fear and excessive avoidance behavior [54]. Long-term physical inactivity has, in its turn, a negative impact on the musculoskeletal and cardiovascular systems [55,56,57,58,59]. In addition, avoidance may also lead to the withdrawal of positive reinforcers causing interference with valued life activities, which increases negative affect. In its turn, negative affect may worsen the pain even more. In this way, people can get mired in a vicious circle. However, pain-related fear will not always lead to avoidance behavior. The expression of fear of movement-related pain and avoidance behavior is dependent on context. When the value of another life goal outweighs the value of pain control, avoidance behavior can be inhibited [60]. In that case, valued life goals are prioritized and engagement in daily activities will promote recovery [49, 50, 61, 62]. This might be fostered by positive affect and optimism because they enhance goal-directed efforts and stimulate approach instead of avoidance [63].

Potential predictors

The factors that predict individual differences in outcomes of surgery in terms of postoperative pain, recovery, and resumption of work are still largely unknown. The existing evidence points towards the role of individual beliefs and behavior, sometimes referred to as the “yellow flags” [64, 65]. More specifically, negative emotions [66], catastrophic (mis)interpretations of pain [67], fear of movement-related pain [68, 69], expectancies towards recovery [70], optimism [63, 71] and intolerance of uncertainty [72, 73] appear to significantly influence functioning after back surgery. Linton and Halldén [74] developed a screening tool, called the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire (ÖMPQ), for the early identification of individuals who risk developing a persistent pain problem. The ÖMPQ was found to be a clinically reliable and valid instrument [75, 76]. In the same vein, Mannion et al. [77], reported that yellow flags significantly contributed to predicting not only the persistency of the pain but also patient outcomes after surgery in general.

Rationale for the current study

Archer et al. [69] conducted a prospective cohort study in the United States (US) to determine whether preoperative and early postoperative fear of movement-related pain predicts pain, disability, and physical health at 6 months following spinal surgery for degenerative conditions. Their results provided preliminary evidence of the predictive value of early postoperative fear of movement-related pain (six weeks) on the outcome, but not of preoperative fear of movement-related pain [68, 69]. Preoperative fear was found to be a risk factor for increased pain and disability and decreased physical health. However, replications are needed, and the question whether these results generalize to the Belgian health care system is still unanswered.

The aim of this longitudinal, prospective study is to identify modifiable predictors of return to work after back surgery in Belgium. For homogeneity reasons, and because there is often no clear indication for surgery in case of LBP, we chose for the clear-cut indication of radicular pain due to compression. Radicular pain, sometimes as a result of nerve root compression and/or inflammation, is defined as pain that radiates from the back down to the legs and occurs in 3 to 5% of the population, making it one of the most common complaints assessed by spine surgeons [78]. Radicular pain commonly co-occurs with, and might even dominate LBP but can also exist on its own. However, due to their co-occurrence and strong overlap in causes, the two conditions are sometimes difficult to completely disentangle. The primary objective is to investigate the effect of (generalization of) fear of movement-related pain and avoidance behavior on sustainable work resumption after back surgery. The secondary objectives are to investigate the effect of (a) (generalization of) fear of movement-related pain and avoidance behavior on pain severity, disability, and quality of life after back surgery, and (b) expectancies towards recovery and work resumption, duration of the pain before the surgery, severity of the pain before and after the surgery, optimism, and yellow flags for long-term disability and failure to return to work on sustainable work resumption, pain severity, disability, and quality of life after back surgery. The study will be conducted in nine Belgian hospitals.

Methods

Design

This multisite study has a prospective, longitudinal design in which individuals with radicular pain who undergo a lumbar decompression, will be followed prior to surgery up until 1 year post-surgery. Measurements take place prior to surgery (preoperative measurement), immediately after surgery (postoperative measurement), and 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-surgery (follow-up measurements), see Fig. 1. The expected duration of the entire study is approximately 2 years.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study design. Note. The first icon represents the consult with the surgeon, the second one the consult with the research assistant. The third icon (the computer) represents the assessment of the computer task. The fourth icon (the notepad) represents the assessments of the questionnaire. The fifth and last icon, presented in blue, represents the surgery

Full size image

Participants

Three hundred individuals with radicular pain will be recruited. Every participant will be planned for back surgery in one of the nine involved Belgian hospitals (i.e., University Hospitals Leuven, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Noorderhart Mariaziekenhuis, AZ Groeninge, GasthuisZusters Antwerp, Centre Hospitalier de Wallonie picarde, Imeldaziekenhuis, Regional Hospital Heilig Hart Tienen, and AZ Sint-Lucas Ghent). Inclusion criteria are: (a) age between 18 and 55, (b) proper mastery of the Dutch, English, and/or French language, (c) intermittent or constant invalidating lumbosciatica for less than 1 year prior to the planned surgery, operationalized by being on sick leave on the day of the surgery (documented by the surgeon), (d) radicular pain in the leg(s) due to compression, that will be treated surgically by performing a decompression without it leading to fusion and/or fixation, and (e) self-employed or has an employment contract, and is on sick leave for less than 1 year at the day of the surgery. Reasons for exclusion are (based on self-report): (a) being treated (ambulant or residential) for substance abuse, suicidal ideation, or a psychotic disorder in the year before the consult with the surgeon, (b) at least one back surgery in the last 5 years prior to the planned surgery, and (c) presence of a comorbid condition (e.g. a severe neurological deficit, a pulmonary embolism, permanent paralysis, and another pain problem in the limbs), which may affect the pain, the outcome of the surgery, the duration of the rehabilitation, and/or the participant’s capacity to return to work during the course of the study. At the end of the study, participants will receive a gift voucher worth of maximum 40 euros (at a rate of 10 euros per completed follow-up measurement).

Sample size

Because there are no previous studies available on the prediction of pain severity and work resumption after back surgery that include all variables in our study, an a priori power analysis for multiple linear regression was conducted. This analysis revealed that, in a model with 12 predictors and a numerator degree of freedom of 14, with a power of 90% (an increase of 0.13 in R2), a total sample size of n = 167 is needed to detect a medium effect (effect size f2 = 0.1494) at an alpha level of 0.05. Considering potential dropouts from follow-up measurements (conservatively estimated at 50%), the aim for inclusion is set at 300 participants. Power calculations were performed in G*Power version 3.0.10.

Procedure

Recruitment and inclusion

Participants will be recruited at the Department of Neurosurgery or Orthopedics of the participating hospitals. The surgeons will screen the participants’ eligibility based on the information that was addressed in the standard anamnestic interview by the neurosurgeon or orthopedic surgeon. When the screening details are not fully known before inclusion, participants’ consent will be requested to ask him/her study-related information to complete the screening.

Before signing the informed consent form, a research assistant will extensively and verbally explain the study protocol. Next, the next study visits will be scheduled, and the participant is requested to indicate in which language (Dutch, English, or French) (s)he wishes to complete the questionnaires and perform the computer task. In addition, participants may also decide to complete the questionnaires of follow-up measurements online or on paper.

Measurements

For an overview of the measured variables during each assessment, see Table 1.

Table 1 Variables measured during each assessment
Full size table

Preoperative measurement

Prior to surgery, the predictor variables, the baseline of the outcome variables, and a selection of potential confounders will be assessed. Therefore, participants will be asked to complete a short computer task and several self-report questionnaires regarding fear of movement-related pain, avoidance behavior, the duration and severity of the pain before the surgery, their expectancies towards recovery and work resumption, optimism, yellow flags for long-term disability and failure to return to work, disability, quality of life, possible influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, and intolerance of uncertainty. We will also administer demographic variables (i.e., age, sex, relationship status, educational attainment, general work characteristics before incapacitated for work, and after work resumption, and start date of incapacity from work). The questionnaires will be implemented in Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a secure web-based software platform [79, 80] and will be completed online on a laptop.

Postoperative measurement

In the week after the surgery, the predictor variables, the baseline of the outcome variables after the surgery, and the more specific work characteristics (e.g., workload, relationship with colleagues/supervisor, and pleasure in work) will be assessed. Participants will be asked to complete several self-report questionnaires to assess intolerance of uncertainty, fear of movement-related pain, avoidance behavior, expectancies towards their recovery and resumption of work, optimism, yellow flags for long-term disability and failure to return to work, pain severity, disability, quality of life, and work characteristics. The presence of unexpected complications that occurred during and/or after the surgery will be checked in the medical record of the participants. This measurement will take place during the participant’s recovery time in the hospital. The questionnaires will be implemented in REDCap and will be completed online on a laptop.

Follow-up measurements: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-surgery

During the last four measurements, the outcome variables will be assessed. Six weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months post-surgery, the research assistant will contact the participants by e-mail and/or telephone and ask them once again to complete some questionnaires regarding the outcome variables (i.e., sustainable work resumption, pain severity, disability, and quality of life), at home. Participants who experience difficulties completing the questionnaires independently can also complete them with telephone or online support of the research assistant (to prevent drop-out).

Measurement instruments

Outcome variables

Self-reported work resumption

To measure work resumption, we make a distinction between being fit for work, work resumption, and sustainable work resumption. Being fit for work will be operationalized by not receiving disability benefits. Work resumption will be operationalized by being at work without receiving disability benefits (on a dichotomous scale), and by time to relapse. Time to relapse is defined as the duration of being at work until a participant is on sick leave again. Sustainable work resumption will be operationalized by being at work for at least three consecutive months without receiving disability benefits (on a dichotomous scale). In addition, the duration of work resumption will be measured (on a continuous scale). All these variables will be assessed using custom-made self-report questions. The custom-made questionnaires are presented in Additional file 1. In order to calculate the time to relapse and sustainable work resumption, we will ask the participants to indicate when they were incapacitated from work and when they resumed work. In addition, we will directly ask if the participant resumed work for at least three consecutive months.

Self-reported pain severity

Pain severity will be operationalized as the intensity of the pain and will be assessed by one question of the short ÖMPSQ [75]. Participants are requested to answer this item (i.e. How would you rate the pain that you have had during the past week?) on a numerical rating scale with labels from 0 = no pain to 10 = pain as bad as it could be. The score on this item will be used as a measure of pain severity before and immediately after the surgery (as baseline measures) and 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-surgery.

Self-reported disability

Disability will be operationalized as the degree to which pain interferes with daily functioning, and will be assessed by the Pain Disability Index (PDI) questionnaire [81]. The PDI is a self-report questionnaire that measures the degree to which pain interferes with functioning in seven areas: i.e., family/home responsibilities, recreation, social activity, occupation, sexual behavior, self-care, and life-support activity [82]. Ratings for each item range from 0 = no disability to 5 = total disability. A total score will be calculated as a reliable and valid [82] measure of the degree of disability before and immediately after the surgery (as baseline measures) and 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-surgery.

Self-reported quality of life

Quality of life will be operationalized as satisfaction with life. It will be measured by the one item of the Riverside Life Satisfaction Scale (RLSS) with the highest factor loading [83]. Participants are requested to answer this item (I am satisfied with my life overall) on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Predictor variables

Self-reported fear of movement-related pain

To measure perceived harmfulness of movements, the following three photographs of the Photograph Series of Daily Activities-short electronic version (PHODA-SeV) [84, 85] were selected: (1) the photograph with the overall highest pain rating (i.e. shoveling soil with a bent back), (2) the photograph with the overall lowest pain rating (i.e. walking through the forest), and (3) the photograph with the highest variance (i.e. trampoline jumping). While a photo is presented on the screen, the participants are asked to rate (on a scale from 0 = not harmful at all to 100 = extremely harmful) to what extent they feel that the movement on the depicted photo would be harmful to their back if they were to perform it. If there is evidence that the three photographs sufficiently correlate, overall perceived harmfulness will be measured by calculating the average score of the three photographs. Otherwise, the individual score on every photograph will be used as a measure of relative perceived harmfulness.

Self-reported avoidance behavior

Avoidance behavior is defined as “any act or series of actions that enables an individual to avoid or anticipate unpleasant or painful situations, stimuli, or events, including conditioned aversive stimuli” [86]. In the current study, we will focus on pain-related avoidance behavior, i.e. the tendency to avoid stimuli or activities that could cause pain or pain-related complaints. It will be assessed by the Escape and Avoidance subscale of the short form of the Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale (PASS-20) [87]. This subscale consists of five items considering thoughts or activities related to avoidance behavior, on which the participants are requested to indicate how often they engage in each of them (on a frequency scale with labels from 0 = never to 4 = always), and proved to be a valid measure of avoidance behavior [88, 89].

Generalization of fear and avoidance behavior

Generalization occurs when novel stimuli (generalization stimuli) evoke responses or behaviors similar to those elicited by a stimulus that naturally evokes a response or behavior (an unconditioned stimulus), or a stimulus that evokes a response or behavior because of its learned association with the unconditioned response (a conditioned response) (Hughes 2011). Such spreading of fear stimuli is following a “better safe than sorry strategy”, which is, in essence, adaptive, but can become maladaptive when there is no threat. Imagine someone experiencing pain when picking up grocery bags. Generalization occurs when the individual starts avoiding putting on pants and mopping the floor, even though these activities were not followed by pain in the past. Generalization, or the spreading of fear, and (generalized) avoidant decision-making to novel movements will be assessed by a recently developed computer task. After approval of the Social and Societal Ethics Committee (SMEC) of KU Leuven (registration number: G- 2018 07 1293) and the Ethical Review Committee Psychology and Neuroscience (ERCPN) of Maastricht University (registration number: Master_189_08_03_2018), this noninvasive computer task was validated in healthy participants at both KU Leuven and Maastricht University. Supporting (cross-site) evidence was found for the construct validity of the paradigm [90]. In this computer task, participants will view digitized images of a person moving in two postures. One posture will be paired with a neutral facial expression and the other posture with a loud human scream and a painful facial expression. Participants will be requested to indicate to what extent they expect the postures to induce pain in the depicted person, and to retrospectively rate their fear towards the postures. Generalization will be tested to intermediate postures (the generalization stimuli) that have a variable similarity between the original two postures, and by assessing pain-expectancy, fear of movement-related pain, and avoidance behavior to the novel stimuli. Pain-expectancy and fear of movement-related pain will be assessed for each stimulus type per block on a continuous rating scale (0–100) ranging from not at all to very much. Avoidance responses will be calculated as the mean percentage of trials in which participants avoided the painful outcome, for each stimulus type per block.

In contrast to the self-report questionnaires that need introspection from the participant and assess fear and avoidance as a cognitive representation, the computer task assesses fear and avoidance on a behavioral, observable level, is contextualized, and is likely more ecologically valid (being afraid of, and avoid a specific posture because they learned it was aversive). In addition, the computer task also measure generalization (spreading) of fear and avoidance, which is considered a unique predictor of negative outcomes (e.g., [52]). Therefore, we consider both measures complementary.

Self-reported predictors of long-term disability and failure to return to work (yellow flags)

Predictors of long-term disability and failure to return to work will be assessed by the short version of the ÖMPSQ [75]. The short version of the ÖMPSQ is a risk assessment tool that consists of 10 items that are scored on a verbal scale, or a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 to 10 (with different labels). This risk assessment tool addresses, among other things, the duration of pain before surgery, pain severity before and after surgery, and expectancies towards recovery and work resumption. The short version of the ÖMPSQ showed to be an accurate and predictive screening tool [75]. A total score will be calculated as a measure of estimated risk for future work disability.

Self-reported expectancies towards recovery and work resumption

Participants’ expectancies towards recovery and work resumption will, in addition to the questions of the short form of the ÖMPSQ, be assessed by custom-made self-report questions. We will assess (a) expectancy towards the duration of the pain, (b) expectancy towards the severity of the pain, (c) certainty about a decrease in pain, (d) expectancy about the severity of pain after surgery, (e) expectancy about the severity of pain 6 weeks after surgery, (f) expectancy about the severity of pain 3 months post-surgery, (g) expectancy about the severity of pain 6 months post-surgery, (h) expectancy towards resumption of work, (i) expectancy towards the duration until they are able to resume work, (j) certainty about their ability to resume work, (k) expectancy towards sustainability of work resumption. All these items will be rated on a numeric rating scale from 0 to 10 (with different labels). If the participant expects that (s)he will not be able to (sustainably) resume work after surgery, the underlying reason will be interrogated.

Potential confounding variables

Demographic variables

We will register age, sex, relationship status, highest grade or level of education completed, the start date of their incapacity for work, and work characteristics (e.g. type of work, type of contract, and employment rate/hours) before being incapacitated for work and after work resumption. Based on the start date of incapacity for work and the date of work resumption, we will calculate the duration of incapacity for work before surgery. We include this as a potential confounder because a study of Du Bois (2014) showed that 70% of the individuals who were incapacitated for work for longer than 3 months before surgery were unable to resume work 1 year after surgery.

Self-reported work-specific characteristics

Work-specific characteristics will be measured by the Experience and Evaluation of Work 2.0 (QEEW2.0) questionnaire [91]. For the purpose of this study, we selected ten subscales: (1) Pace and amount of work, (2) Emotional workload, (3) Mental workload, (4) Physical effort, (5) Relationship with supervisor, (6) Relationship with colleagues, (7) Work pleasure, (8) Career opportunities, (9) Organizational commitment, and (10) Changing jobs (intention to change jobs). These scales will be rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from always to never (subscales 1–6), or a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree (subscales 7–10). The total score of each subscale will be calculated as a measure of an individual characteristic. The QEEW2.0 is a reliable and valid measurement for research on work, wellbeing, and performance [92].

Surgery variables

We will register if complications (i.e. undesirable and unintended events that result from surgery) occur during and/or after the surgery (on a dichotomous scale: yes–no). This data will be monitored by the surgeon and taken from the medical record of the participant.

Potential influence of COVID-19

For exploratory reasons, we will examine whether results are influenced by the current COVID-19 pandemic. The participant will be requested to indicate a) to what extend there was concern about health as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (on a numeric rating scale from 0 = not at all to 10 = very much), b) to what extent physical activity was limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic (on a numeric rating scale from 0 = I have not at all been less physically active to 10 = I have very much been less physically active), and c) if two or more of the typical COVID-19 symptoms were experienced simultaneously in the past 6 months (on a dichotomous scale: yes–no).

Potential moderator variables

Self-reported intolerance of uncertainty

Intolerance of uncertainty (IU) is defined as “the tendency of an individual to consider the possibility of a negative event occurring unacceptable, irrespective of the probability of occurrence” [91, p. 105], which will be measured by the 12-item Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS-12) [93]. Participants are requested to indicate to what extent the statements apply to them (on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all characteristic of me to 5 = entirely characteristic of me). A total score will be calculated as a measure of responses to uncertainty. The IUS-12 has shown to be a reliable and valid questionnaire with satisfactory psychometric properties [93,94,95,96] in both clinical as non-clinical study samples [97]. IU is included as a potential moderator of the relationships between the predictors and outcome variables. In previous research, IU was found to be a potential risk factor for persistent pain, and excessive and inflexible avoidance, which both have been found to be associated with mental disorders [72, 98]. In addition, IU was found to be related to higher levels of fear and non-adaptive cognitions (e.g., worrying, ruminating, and catastrophizing) in uncertain situations, causing people who are intolerant of uncertainty to be more likely to interpret ambiguous information in a threatening way [72, 93, 98, 99]. Therefore, we assume intolerance of uncertainty to be a risk or vulnerability factor in the relation between the predictors and outcome variables of interest.

Self-reported optimism

Optimism is defined as “the attitude that good things will happen and that people's wishes or aims will ultimately be fulfilled” (American Psychological Association, n.d.). Trait optimism will be measured by the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R) questionnaire [100]. The LOT-R consists of 10 statements, on which participants are requested to indicate to what extent they agree (on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree), and has shown to have satisfactory psychometric properties [101]. A total score will be calculated as a measure of generalized optimism. Also optimism will be considered a potential moderator of the relationships between the predictors and outcome variables. Previous research has shown that optimism is related to improved psychological and physical well-being [102, 103]. It has shown that optimists typically experience less pain, better adjust to pain because of adaptive behavior, and have a better quality of life [71, 102, 104]. In addition, empirical evidence has shown that optimism is related to better outcomes after major invasive and minor elective surgeries [71]. Therefore, we assume optimism to have a protective function in the relation between the predictors and outcome variables of interest.

Statistical analysis plan

Following an intent-to-treat approach, data from all included participants will be analyzed. Descriptive statistics will be used to explore the mean and median scores, and standard deviations of all measures. Depending on the type of dependent variable, we will apply Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis with time-dependent covariates or multiple (logistic) regression analysis, starting with a univariate analysis, followed by a multivariate analysis. If statistical power allows, interaction effect between time and all the predictor variables will also be tested to evaluate if the effect of the predictor variables is consistent in time. Additionally, we will check for site effects with the mixed model regression approach. All variables will be examined for the assumptions required for parametric analyses. Results will be evaluated at p < 0.05 significance level. Effect sizes (i.e., odds ratios) and post hoc power will be calculated when appropriate.

Primary objectives

Logistic regressions will be performed to examine the effect of preoperative as well as postoperative fear of movement-related pain and avoidance behavior (and their generalization), expectancies towards recovery, expectancies towards work resumption, presence of yellow flags, on return to work at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-surgery. Next, a time-dependent Cox regression will be performed to examine the effect of the predictor variables on return to work over time. The same analyses will be conducted for the sustainability of work resumption at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-surgery as a dependent variable.

Multiple linear regression analyses will be carried out to examine the effect of the predictor variables on the duration to resume work over time. Log-rank test and Kaplan–Meier plots will be applied to compare rates of work resumption between participants with different profiles (i.e. at work or not during the different measurement moments).

All interaction effects, including the predictor*time interactions, will be explored. Following potential confounders will be included as covariates in each analysis: age, sex, work characteristics, duration of incapacity for work, surgery complication, and the potential influence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Secondary objectives

Multiple linear regressions will be carried out to examine the effect of (generalization of) fear of movement-related pain and avoidance behavior, expectancies towards recovery and work resumption, and ÖMPSQ score on pain severity, disability, and quality of life. Interaction effects, including the interaction between the predictors and time, will be explored. Following potential confounders will be included as covariates in each analysis: age, sex, work characteristics, duration of incapacity for work, surgery complications, and the potential influence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Moderator effects

To check if optimism and intolerance of uncertainty moderate the relationship between the predictors and the outcome variables, we will include these in interaction terms in the relation between the predictor variables and the outcome variables.

Discussion

Low back pain and radicular pain are highly prevalent health problems in western societies [14]. In most individuals, the pain is benign and will recover spontaneously over time. However, in about one-third of the individuals, the pain persists beyond healing time and becomes chronic, being responsible for a considerable burden on both the individual and the society. Over the past decades, the number of back surgeries substantially rose in several Western countries [35, 105]. This increase became less pronounced in Belgium and evolved in a more stable way with even a small decrease in the past years. However, there seems to be a global threat of overuse of healthcare, including the execution of unnecessary surgeries [106]. This is concerning because the execution of surgeries does not only entail a considerable cost for the society and a waste of healthcare resources, it also exposes individuals to potential hazardous consequences and long-lasting rehabilitation [45, 106,107,108]. Previous studies, for example, reported that 20% of the individuals are unable to return to work after back surgery. Studies in the US also found that individuals who underwent surgery continued to have poorer physical and mental functioning compared with the general US population [109, 110]. In addition, a systematic review showed that recurrent back pain may occur in 15–25% of individuals 2 years after undergoing a discectomy for lumbar disc herniation [111]. As mentioned before, the relatively high number of non-desirable outcomes might be partially caused by poor diagnostic evaluation or misclassification of diagnoses or treatments (e.g. selection of patients without a clear indication for that specific treatment), leading to unnecessary and inadequate surgery [112,113,114,115]. In most individuals with LBP, there is actually no causal relationship between underlying pathology and pain severity [14, 45]. There is also no unequivocal evidence that surgery is the best solution for treatment of LBP (in the long term) [37]. Based upon these findings, the Belgian guidelines regarding the management of LBP and radicular syndrome were recently revised. These guidelines are moving away from pharmacological and surgical treatments, and place greater emphasis on self-management and non-invasive interventions such as exercise and psychological treatments [116, 117]. In addition, a risk stratification, with attention to yellow flags, to predict the risk for chronic pain is usually added as an important step in the treatment of LBP [117, 118].

Nevertheless, postoperative outcomes are often variable, differ among individuals and interventions, and depend on different factors (both personal, social, and contextual). Based upon the finding that biological models cannot sufficiently explain postoperative outcomes, many studies investigated potential risk and beneficial factors [29, 66, 119]. However, the specific factors that predict individual trajectories in postoperative outcomes, recovery, and resumption of work are largely unknown. The available evidence points towards the role of dysfunctional beliefs and avoidance behaviors. Therefore, we aim to identify psychological predictors that promote or impede (functional) recovery and sustainable work resumption after back surgery. In order to keep the participant sample as homogeneous as possible, we chose to include individuals with radicular pain due to compression for which surgery can be indicated [78].

So far, the empirical evidence on the influence of personal factors on work resumption is strongly limited because it is almost exclusively based on cross-sectional studies. To our knowledge, the proposed study is novel for its longitudinal, prospective design, and the use of a computer task measuring behavioral responses in addition to self-reports. A longitudinal prospective design enables us to investigate if and when the predictors affect post-surgical work resumption, pain severity, disability, and quality of life.

Practical issues of this study comprise a higher risk of dropout over time, which might impede high levels of data completeness. In addition, the multicentric design might make it more difficult to warrant consistent execution of the study protocol across all participating sites. Besides that, most predictors are assessed based on self-report measures, which are momentary and susceptible to several biases and socially desirable answers. To compensate for these biases, the computer task was developed for the assessment of generalization of pain-related fear and avoidance behavior.

With the results of this research, we hope to gain more insight into the factors affecting recovery and work resumption after back surgery and contribute to the development of strategies for early identification of risk factors, and appropriate guidance and interventions before and after back surgery. In its turn, these interventions may lead to better recovery and adjusted and sustainable reintegration into the labor market.

Availability of data and materials

After the study is completed, the datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ERCPN:

Ethical Review Committee Psychology and Neuroscience

FA:

Fear-avoidance

FBSS:

Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

IUS:

Intolerance of Uncertainty

LBP:

Low back pain

LOT-R:

Life Orientation Test-Revised

ÖMPSQ:

Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire

PASS:

Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale

PDI:

Pain Disability Index

PHODA-SeV:

Photograph Series of Daily Activities-short electronic version

QEEW:

Questionnaire on the Experience and Evaluation of Work

REDCap:

Research Electronic Data Capture

RLSS:

Riverside Life Satisfaction Scale

SMEC:

Societal Ethics Committee

TRACE:

Centre For Translational Psychological Research

VAS:

Visual Analogue Scale

WABS:

Work After Back Surgery

References

  1. Nielens H, Van Zundert J, Mairiaux P, Gailly J, Van Den Hecke N, Mazina D, et al. Chronic low back pain. Good Clinical practice (GCP). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2006. http://www.kce.fgov.be. Accessed 21 Dec 2021.

  2. Lim YZ, Chou L, Au RT, Seneviwickrama KMD, Cicuttini FM, Briggs AM, et al. People with low back pain want clear, consistent and personalised information on prognosis, treatment options and self-management strategies: a systematic review. J Physiother. 2019;65:124–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2019.05.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hall A, Coombs D, Richmond H, Bursey K, Furlong B, Lawrence R, et al. What do the general public believe about the causes, prognosis and best management strategies for low back pain? A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:682. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10664-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Patrick N, Emanski E, Knaub MA. Acute and chronic low back pain. Med Clin N Am. 2014;98:777–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2014.03.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vlaeyen JWS, Maher CG, Wiech K, Van Zundert J, Meloto CB, Diatchenko L, et al. Low back pain. Nat Rev Dis Prim. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-018-0052-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Walker BF. The prevalence of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature from 1966 to 1998. J Spinal Disord. 2000;13:205–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jonckheer P, Desomer A, Depreitere B, Berquin A, Bruneau M, Christiaens W, et al. Low back pain and radicular pain: development of a clinical pathway. Health Services Research (HSR) Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2017. www.kce.fgov.be. Accessed 7 Apr 2021.

  8. Koes BW, Van Tulder MW, Thomas S. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. BMJ. 2006;332:1430–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7555.1430.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Maher C, Underwood M, Buchbinder R. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 2017;389:736–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bartoloni A, Rimondi E, Guglielmi G, Bazzocchi A. Low back pain imaging management in the elderly population. Curr Radiol Rep. 2017;5:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Freburger JK, Holmes GM, Agans RP, Jackman AM, Darter JD, Wallace AS, et al. The rising prevalence of chronic low back pain. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:251–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. da Menezes Costa L, Maher CG, Hancock MJ, McAuley JH, Herbert RD, Costa LOP. The prognosis of acute and persistent low-back pain: a meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2012;184:E613–24.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Du Bois M, Szpalski M, Donceel P. Patients at risk for long-term sick leave because of low back pain. Spine J. 2009;9:350–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2008.07.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Van Wambeke P, Desomer A, Jonckheer P, Depreitere B. The Belgian national guideline on low back pain and radicular pain: Key roles for rehabilitation, assessment of rehabilitation potential and the PRM specialist. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2020;56:220–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Treede R-D, Rief W, Barke A, Aziz Q, Bennett MI, Benoliel R, et al. A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11. Pain. 2015;156:1003–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Katz J, Rosenbloom BN, Fashler S. Chronic pain, psychopathology, and DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder. Can J Psychiatry. 2015;60:160–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, Cohen R, Gallacher D. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: Prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain. 2006;10:287–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.06.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith BH, Elliott AM, Chambers WA, Smith WC, Hannaford PC, Penny K. The impact of chronic pain in the community. Fam Pract. 2001;18:292–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/18.3.292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 Diseases and Injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392:1789–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. 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;396:1204–22.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Miller LR, Cano A. Comorbid chronic pain and depression: who is at risk? J Pain. 2009;10:619–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kroenke K, Outcalt S, Krebs E, Bair MJ, Wu J, Chumbler N, et al. Association between anxiety, health-related quality of life and functional impairment in primary care patients with chronic pain. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013;35:359–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.03.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hadi MA, McHugh GA, Closs SJ. Impact of chronic pain on patients’ quality of life: a comparative mixed-methods study. J Patient Exp. 2019;6:133–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373518786013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J. 2008;8:8–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bachmann S, Wieser S, Oesch P, Schmidhauser S, Knüsel O, Kool J. Three-year cost analysis of function-centred versus pain-centred inpatient rehabilitation in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:919–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lidgren L. The bone and joint decade 2000–2010. Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81:629.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Alonso-García M, Sarría-Santamera A. The economic and social burden of low back pain in Spain: a national assessment of the economic and social impact of low back pain in Spain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45:E1026–32.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Geurts JW, Willems PC, Kallewaard JW, Van Kleef M, Dirksen C. The impact of chronic discogenic low back pain: costs and patients’ burden. Pain Res Manag. 2018;2018.

  29. Lardon A, Dubois JD, Cantin V, Piché M, Descarreaux M. Predictors of disability and absenteeism in workers with non-specific low back pain: a longitudinal 15-month study. Appl Ergon. 2017;2018(68):176–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.11.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Maetzel A, Li L. The economic burden of low back pain: a review of studies published between 1996 and 2001. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2002;16:23–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Maniadakis N, Gray A. The economic burden of back pain in the UK. Pain. 2000;84:95–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM. A cost-of-illness study of back pain in The Netherlands. Pain. 1995;62:233–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Walker BF, Muller R, Grant WD. Low back pain in Australian adults: The economic burden. Asia-Pacific J Public Heal. 2003;15:79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Azevedo LF, Costa-Pereira A, Mendonça L, Dias CC, Castro-Lopes JM. The economic impact of chronic pain: a nationwide population-based cost-of-illness study in Portugal. Eur J Heal Econ. 2016;17:87–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0659-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Du Bois M, Szpalski M, Donceel P. A decade’s experience in lumbar spine surgery in Belgium: sickness fund beneficiaries, 2000–2009. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:2693–703.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Appropriate care unit of the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI/RIZIV/INAMI). Medical practice variations: Spine surgery. 2020. https://www.healthybelgium.be/images/INAMI/Rapports/RAPPORT-EN-CHIRURGIE_VERTEBRALE_2019.pdf. Accessed 28 Apr 2021.

  37. Harris IA, Traeger A, Stanford R, Maher CG, Buchbinder R. Lumbar spine fusion: what is the evidence? Intern Med J. 2018;48:1430–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.14120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Chan C, Peng P. Failed back surgery syndrome. Pain Med. 2011;12:577–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01089.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Davis RA. A long-term outcome analysis of 984 surgically treated herniated lumbar discs. J Neurosurg. 1994;80:415–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Devin CJ, Bydon M, Alvi MA, Kerezoudis P, Khan I, Sivaganesan A, et al. A predictive model and nomogram for predicting return to work at 3 months after cervical spine surgery: an analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database. Neurosurg Focus. 2018;45:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Asher AL, Devin CJ, Archer KR, Chotai S, Parker SL, Bydon M, et al. An analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database, Part 2. Predictive model for return to work after elective surgery for lumbar degenerative disease. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27:370–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Du Bois MG, Donceel P. Epidemiology, outcome and costs of surgery for lumbar disc herniation. In: Gunzburg R, Szpalski M, Andersson GBJ, editors. Degenerative disc disease. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004. p. 313–20.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hsu E, Atanelov L, Plunkett AR, Chai N, Chen Y, Cohen SP. Epidural lysis of adhesions for failed back surgery and spinal stenosis. Anesth Analg. 2014;118:215–24. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nicholas MK, Vlaeyen JWS, Rief W, Barke A, Aziz Q, Benoliel R, et al. The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic primary pain. Pain. 2019;160:28–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001390.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 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;391:2356–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. den Hollander M, De Jong JR, Volders S, Goossens ME, Smeets RJ, Vlaeyen JW. Fear reduction in patients with chronic pain: a learning theory perspective. Expert Rev Neurother. 2010;10:1733–45.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Leeuw M, Goossens MEJB, Linton SJ, Crombez G, Boersma K, Vlaeyen JWS. The fear-avoidance model of musculoskeletal pain: current state of scientific evidence. J Behav Med. 2007;30:77–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Crombez G, Eccleston C, Van Damme S, Vlaeyen JWS, Karoly P. Fear-avoidance model of chronic pain. Clin J Pain. 2012;28:475–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Vlaeyen JWS, Kole-Snijders AMJ, Boeren RGB, van Eek H. Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance. Pain. 1995;62:363–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Vlaeyen JWS, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a state of the art. Pain. 2000;85:317–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Vlaeyen JWS, Crombez G, Linton SJ. The fear-avoidance model of pain. Pain. 2016;157:1588–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000574.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Meulders A. From fear of movement-related pain and avoidance to chronic pain disability: a state-of-the-art review. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2019;26:130–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.12.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ghirlanda S, Enquist M. A century of generalization. Anim Behav. 2003;66:15–36.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Meulders A, Vlaeyen JWS. The acquisition and generalization of cued and contextual pain-related fear: an experimental study using a voluntary movement paradigm. Pain. 2013;154:272–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2012.10.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kramer A, Gollhofer A, Armbrecht G, Felsenberg D, Gruber M. How to prevent the detrimental effects of two months of bed-rest on muscle, bone and cardiovascular system: an RCT. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13659-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Booth FW, Roberts CK, Laye MJ. Lack of exercise is a major cause of chronic diseases. Compr Physiol. 2012;2:1143–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/cphy.c110025.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Prasad D, Das B. Physical inactivity: a cardiovascular risk factor. Indian J Med Sci. 2009;63:33–42. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5359.49082.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Blair SN. Physical inactivity: the biggest public health problem of the 21st century. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43:1–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Parry SM, Puthucheary ZA. The impact of extended bed rest on the musculoskeletal system in the critical care environment. Extreme Physiol Med. 2015;4:2–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13728-015-0036-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Claes N, Karos K, Meulders A, Crombez G, Vlaeyen JWS. Competing goals attenuate avoidance behavior in the context of pain. J Pain. 2014;15:1120–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2014.08.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Vlaeyen JWS, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance model of chronic musculoskeletal pain: 12 years on. Pain. 2012;153:1144–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2011.12.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Gardner T, Refshauge K, McAuley J, Goodall S, Hubscher M, Smith L. Patient-led goal setting. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41:1405–13.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Basten-Günther J, Peters M, Lautenbacher S. Optimism and the experience of pain: a systematic review. Behav Med. 2019;45:323–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.2018.1517242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Linton SJ. A review of psychological risk factors in back and neck pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:1148–56.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Nicholas MK, Linton SJ, Watson PJ, Main CJ. Early identification and management of psychological risk factors (' “yellow flags”’) in patients with low back pain: a reappraisal. Phys Ther. 2011;91:737–53. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20100224.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Seebach CL, Kirkhart M, Lating JM, Wegener ST, Song Y, Riley LH, et al. Examining the role of positive and negative affect in recovery from spine surgery. Pain. 2012;153:518–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Block AR, Ben-Porath YS, Marek RJ. Psychological risk factors for poor outcome of spine surgery and spinal cord stimulator implant: A review of the literature and their assessment with the MMPI-2-RF. Clin Neuropsychol. 2013;27:81–107.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Archer KR, Wegener ST, Seebach C, Song Y, Skolasky RL, Thornton C, et al. The effect of fear of movement beliefs on pain and disability after surgery for lumbar and cervical degenerative conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:1554–62.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Archer KR, Seebach CL, Mathis SL, Riley LH, Wegener ST. Early postoperative fear of movement predicts pain, disability, and physical health six months after spinal surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine J. 2014;14:759–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.087.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Auer CJ, Glombiewski JA, Doering BK, Winkler A, Laferton JAC, Broadbent E, et al. Patients’ expectations predict surgery outcomes: a meta-analysis. Int J Behav Med. 2016;23:49–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Goodin BR, Bulls HW. Optimism and the experience of pain: benefits of seeing the glass as half full. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2014;17:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Neville A, Kopala-Sibley DC, Soltani S, Asmundson GJG, Jordan A, Carleton RN, et al. A longitudinal examination of the interpersonal fear avoidance model of pain: the role of intolerance of uncertainty. Pain. 2021;162:152–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Donthula D, Kortlever JTP, Maartenskliniek S, Ring DC. Idiopathic mononeuropathy of the upper extremity view project longer length of stay increases 1-year readmission rate in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery view project. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000001042.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Linton SJ, Halldén K. Can we screen for problematic back pain? A screening questionnaire for predicting outcome in acute and subacute back pain. Clin J Pain. 1998;14:209–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Linton SJ, Nicholas MK, MacDonald S. Development of a short form of the Örebro musculoskeletal pain screening questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:1891–5.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Linton SJ, Boersma K. Early identification of patients at risk of developing a persistent back problem: the predictive validity of the Örebro musculoskeletal pain questionnaire. Clin J Pain. 2003;19:80–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Mannion AF, Mariaux F, Reitmeir R, Fekete TF, Haschtmann D, Loibl M, et al. Development of the “Core Yellow Flags Index” (CYFI) as a brief instrument for the assessment of key psychological factors in patients undergoing spine surgery. Eur Spine J. 2020;29:1935–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06462-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Berry JA, Elia C, Saini HS, Miulli DE. A review of lumbar radiculopathy, diagnosis, and treatment. Cureus. 2019. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.5934.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95: 103208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Pollard CA. Preliminary validity study of the pain disability index. Percept Mot Skills. 1984;59:974.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Tait RC, Chibnall JT, Krause S. The Pain Disability Index: psychometric properties. Pain. 1990;40:171–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Margolis S, Schwitzgebel E, Ozer DJ, Lyubomirsky S. A new measure of life satisfaction: the Riverside Life Satisfaction Scale. J Pers Assess. 2019;101:621–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1464457.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Leeuw M, Goossens MEJB, van Breukelen GJP, Boersma K, Vlaeyen JWS. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Oliveira CB, Franco MR, Demarchi SJ, Smeets RJEM, Huijnen IPJ, Morelhão PK, et al. Psychometric properties of the photograph series of daily activities-short electronic version (PHODA-SeV) in patients with chronic low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018;48:719–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. American Psychological Association. avoidance behavior—APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/avoidance-behavior. Accessed 7 Apr 2021.

  87. Mccracken LM, Ba LD. Anxiety and related factors in chronic pain. A short version of the Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale (PASS-20): preliminary development and validity. Pain Res Manag. 2002;7:45–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Roelofs J, Mccracken L, Peters ML, Crombez G, Van Breukelen G, Vlaeyen JWS. Psychometric evaluation of the Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale (PASS) in chronic pain patients. J Behav Med. 2004;18:29.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Abrams MP, Carleton RN, Asmundson GJG. An exploration of the psychometric properties of the PASS-20 with a nonclinical sample. J Pain. 2007;8:879–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Masuy R, Lenaert B, Bamelis L, Vlaeyen JWS, Meulders A. Assessment of generalization of pain-related fear and avoidance behavior for low back pain: a novel computer-based paradigm. 2021.

  91. van Veldhoven M, Prins J, van der Laken P, Dijkstra L. VBBA2.0 Update van de standaard voor vragenlijstonderzoek naar werk, welbevinden en prestaties. 2014.

  92. van Veldhoven M, Prins J, van der Laken P, Dijkstra L. QEEW2.0: 42 short scales for survey research on work, well-being and performance. Amsterdam: SKB; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Carleton RN, Norton MAPJ, Asmundson GJG. Fearing the unknown: a short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. J Anxiety Disord. 2007;21:105–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Wilson EJ, Stapinski L, Dueber DM, Rapee RM, Burton AL, Abbott MJ. Psychometric properties of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12 in generalized anxiety disorder: assessment of factor structure, measurement properties and clinical utility. J Anxiety Disord. 2020;76:102309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102309.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Khawaja NG, Yu LNH. A comparison of the 27-item and 12-item intolerance of uncertainty scales. Clin Psychol. 2010;14:97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Helsen K, Van den Bussche E, Vlaeyen JWS, Goubert L. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Dutch Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale: comparison of the full and short version. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2013;44:21–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.07.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Bottesi G, Noventa S, Freeston MH, Ghisi M. Seeking certainty about intolerance of uncertainty: addressing old and new issues through the intolerance of uncertainty scale-revised. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Flores A, López FJ, Vervliet B, Cobos PL. Intolerance of uncertainty as a vulnerability factor for excessive and inflexible avoidance behavior. Behav Res Ther. 2017;2018(104):34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.02.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Simmonds MJ, Derghazarian T, Vlaeyen JWS. Physiotherapists’ knowledge, attitudes, and intolerance of uncertainty influence decision making in low back pain. Clin J Pain. 2012;28:467–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Scheier MF, Carver CS, Bridges MW. Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the life orientation test. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;67:1063–78.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Glaesmer H, Rief W, Martin A, Mewes R, Brähler E, Zenger M, et al. Psychometric properties and population-based norms of the Life Orientation Test Revised (LOT-R). Br J Health Psychol. 2012;17:432–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Conversano C, Rotondo A, Lensi E, Della Vista O, Arpone F, Reda MA. Optimism and its impact on mental and physical well-being. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Heal. 2010;6:25–9.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Rasmussen HN, Scheier MF, Greenhouse JB. Optimism and physical health: a meta-analytic review. Ann Behav Med. 2009;37:239–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Hanssen MM, Peters ML, Vlaeyen JWS, Meevissen YMC, Vancleef LMG. Optimism lowers pain: evidence of the causal status and underlying mechanisms. Pain. 2013;154:53–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2012.08.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Grotle M, Småstuen MC, Fjeld O, Grøvle L, Helgeland J, Storheim K, et al. Lumbar spine surgery across 15 years: trends, complications and reoperations in a longitudinal observational study from Norway. BMJ Open. 2019;9:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Foster NE, Anema JR, Cherkin D, Chou R, Cohen SP, Gross DP, et al. Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions. Lancet. 2018;391:2368–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Buchbinder R, van Tulder M, Öberg B, Costa LM, Woolf A, Schoene M, et al. Low back pain: a call for action. The Lancet. 2018;391:2384–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30488-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Yadla S, Malone J, Campbell PG, Maltenfort MG, Harrop JS, Sharan AD, et al. Early complications in spine surgery and relation to preoperative diagnosis: a single-center prospective study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13:360–6. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.3.SPINE09806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Turner JA, Comstock BA, Hollingworth W, et al. Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2008;299:656–64.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson ANA, Blood E, Hanscom B, et al. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:794–810.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Godil SS, Sivasubramanian P, Cahill K, Ziewacz J, et al. Incidence of low back pain after lumbar discectomy for herniated disc and its effect on patient-reported outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:1988–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4193-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Gavrielov-Yusim N, Friger M. Use of administrative medical databases in population-based research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2013-202744.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Rodrigues FF, Dozza DC, De Oliveira CR, De Castro RG. Failed back surgery syndrome: casuistic and etiology. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2006;64(3B):757–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Waguespack A, Schofferman J, Slosar P, Reynolds J. Etiology of long-term failures of lumbar spine surgery. Pain Med. 2002;3:18–22. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-4637.2002.02007.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Sharma R, Sharma A, Prasher B. Review on failed back surgery syndrome. Int J Pharm Technol. 2013;5:2495–508.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Depreitere B, Jonckheer P, Coeckelberghs E, Desomer A, Van Wambeke P. The pivotal role for the multidisciplinary approach at all phases and at all levels in the national pathway for the management of low back pain and radicular pain in Belgium. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2020;56:228–2236.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Van Wambeke P, Desomer A, Ailliet L, Berquin A, Demoulin C, Depreitere B, et al. Low back pain and radicular pain: assessment and management. Good Clinical Practice (GCP). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). KCE Reports 287. D/2017/10.273/36; 2017. https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/atoms/files/KCE_287_Low_back_pain_Report.pdf. Accessed 7 Apr 2021.

  118. Oliveira CB, Maher CG, Pinto RZ, Traeger AC, Lin CC, Chenot J, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care: an updated overview. Eur Spine J. 2018;27:2791–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5673-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Kleinstück FS, Grob D, Lattig F, Bartanusz V, Porchet F, Jeszenszky D, et al. The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:1198–203.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge all the surgeons and research assistants of the Departments Neurosurgery and Orthopedics of the participating hospitals for their willingness to contribute to the study. The authors also acknowledge the members of the advisory committee of the study (Geert Crombez, Lode Godderis, Marc Dubois, Philippe Mairiaux, Peter van Wambeke, and Steven Linton) who gave valuable feedback on previous versions of the study protocol.

Funding

The study is funded by a grant from the “Kenniscentrum arbeidsongeschiktheid” of the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (RIZIV/INAMI). The study was conceived in collaboration with the funder. Besides that, the funder has no role in data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, and writing the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ann Meulders and Johan W. S. Vlaeyen share senior authorship

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Group Health Psychology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Rini Masuy, Lotte Bamelis, Katleen Bogaerts, Steefka Zijlstra, Ann Meulders & Johan W. S. Vlaeyen

  2. Centre for Translational Psychological Research TRACE, Genk, Belgium

    Lotte Bamelis

  3. Department of Psychology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium

    Lotte Bamelis

  4. REVAL - Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium

    Katleen Bogaerts

  5. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Bart Depreitere

  6. Department of Neurosurgery, GasthuisZusters Antwerpen, Wilrijk, Belgium

    Kris De Smedt

  7. Department of Neurosurgery, AZ Groeninge, Courtrai, Belgium

    Jeroen Ceuppens

  8. Department of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Bert Lenaert

  9. School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Bert Lenaert

  10. Limburg Brain Injury Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Bert Lenaert

  11. Department of Neurosurgery, Centre Hospitalier de Wallonie picarde, Tournai, Belgium

    Sarah Lonneville

  12. Department of Neurosurgery, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium

    Dieter Peuskens

  13. Department of Neurosurgery, Noorderhart Mariaziekenhuis, Pelt, Belgium

    Dieter Peuskens

  14. Department of Orthopedics, AZ Sint-Lucas Gent, Ghent, Belgium

    Johan Van Lerbeirghe

  15. Department of Neurosurgery, Imeldaziekenhuis, Bonheiden, Belgium

    Patrick Van Schaeybroeck

  16. Department of Neurosurgery, Regional Hospital Sacred Heart Tienen, Tienen, Belgium

    Patrick Van Schaeybroeck

  17. Department of Orthopedics, Noorderhart Mariaziekenhuis, Pelt, Belgium

    Peter Vorlat

  18. Experimental Health Psychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Ann Meulders & Johan W. S. Vlaeyen

Authors
  1. Rini Masuy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lotte Bamelis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katleen Bogaerts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bart Depreitere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kris De Smedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jeroen Ceuppens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bert Lenaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sarah Lonneville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Dieter Peuskens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Johan Van Lerbeirghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Patrick Van Schaeybroeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Peter Vorlat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Steefka Zijlstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Ann Meulders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Johan W. S. Vlaeyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RM, LB, AM, and JV developed the study concept with the help of BL and wrote the study protocol. BD and DP contributed to the establishment of the in- and exclusion criteria. BD, KDS, JC, BL, SL, DP, JVL, PVS, PV, and SZ contributed to the development of the study protocol, provided feedback on both the content and structure of the study protocol based on their expertise, and commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rini Masuy.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study will be conducted in compliance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (October 2013), and the principles of the Good Clinical Practices. The collection, processing, and disclosure of personal data, such as the health and medical information of participants, are subject to compliance with applicable personal data protection and the processing of personal data (Directive 95/46/EC and Belgian law of December 8, 1992, on the Protection of the Privacy in relation to the Processing of Personal Data). Approval of the Ethics Committee Research UZ/KU Leuven (S63018), as central ethics committee, and of the Comité Medische Ethiek Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg (ctu2019088 and EC19/0096L), Commissie Medische Ethiek Noorderhart Mariaziekenhuis (S63018), Commissie medische ethiek AZ Groeninge (AZGS2020051), Commissie Medische Ethiek GZA (201106ACADEM), Commissie Medische Ethiek Imeldaziekenhuis (S63018), Ethisch comité Regional Hospital Heilig Hart Tienen (B322201942452), Commissie Medische Ethiek AZ Sint-Lucas Gent (2020–42), Comité d'Ethique Centre Hospitalier de Wallonie picarde (P2020-013) was obtained before the start of the study in each respective participating site. The study is also preregistered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04747860. All participants provided written informed consent to participate in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

. Custom-made questionnaires. Questionnaires that were developed for this study (pdf).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Masuy, R., Bamelis, L., Bogaerts, K. et al. Generalization of fear of movement-related pain and avoidance behavior as predictors of work resumption after back surgery: a study protocol for a prospective study (WABS). BMC Psychol 10, 39 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-022-00736-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-022-00736-5

Keywords

  • Low back pain
  • Back surgery
  • Postoperative pain
  • Predictors of return to work
  • Fear of movement-related pain
  • Avoidance
  • Fear generalization
  • Avoidance generalization
  • Disability
  • Quality of life

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

Contact us