Reliability of the Thai version of the modified STarT Back Screening Tool in individuals with neck pain

Authors

  • Nattawan Phungwattanakul Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand
  • Uchukarn Boonyapo Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand
  • Taweewat Wiangkham Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand

Keywords:

STarT back screening tool, neck pain, reliability

Abstract

Backgrounds: The modified STarT Back Screening Tool in Thai version (mSBST-TH) for individuals with neck pain (NP) was adapted from the STarT Back Screening Tool in Thai version (SBST-TH) for individuals with low back pain (LBP) to classify individuals with NP into low, medium, and high risk for chronicity. Owing to a lot of individuals with NP in Thailand. It would be beneficial if the mSBST-TH was available to help primary care management in Thai individuals with NP. However, the reliability of this tool has not been investigated.

Objective: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the reliability of the mSBST-TH for individuals with NP.

Methods: A total of 261 subjects (aged 20 - 70 years) with NP in Phitsanulok Province completed the mSBST-TH for evaluating the internal consistency. The test-retest reliability was assessed by 50 subjects who completed the mSBST-TH twice, with an interval of two days.

Results: The test-retest reliability of the mSBST-TH was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69 - 0.88) for the total score and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53 - 0.82) for the psychosocial subscore. The internal consistency was 0.73 for the total score (range 0.68 - 0.74). The standard error of measurement (SEM) was 0.564 (total score) and 0.559 (psychosocial subscore). Lastly, the minimal detectable change of the mSBST-TH total score was 1.563.

Conclusion: The mSBST-TH is a reliable tool to classify individuals with NP, with acceptable test-retest reliability and internal consistency.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Safiri S, Kolahi AA, Hoy D, Buchbinder R, Mansournia MA, Bettampadi D, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of neck pain in the general population, 1990 - 2017: systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 2017. BMJ 2020;368.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m791

Hoy D, March L, Brooks P, Blyth F, Woolf A, Bain C, et al. The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:968-74.https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204428

Murray CJ, Atkinson C, Bhalla K, Birbeck G, Burstein R, Chou D, et al. The state of US health, 1990-2010: burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. JAMA 2013;310:591-608.https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.13805

Fandim JV, Nitzsche R, Michaleff ZA, Pena Costa LO, Saragiotto B. The contemporary management of neck pain in adults. Pain Manag 2021;11:75-87.https://doi.org/10.2217/pmt-2020-0046

Phithaksilp M. Non-specific neck pain: guideline for assessment, diagnosis and treatment in primary medical care. J Health Sci 2016;25:760-8.

Côté P, Wong JJ, Sutton D, Shearer HM, Mior S, Randhawa K, et al. Management of neck pain and associated disorders: a clinical practice guideline from the Ontario protocol for traffic injury management (OPTIMa) collaboration. Eur Spine J 2016;25:2000-22.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4467-7

Hill JC, Dunn KM, Lewis M, Mullis R, Main CJ, Foster NE, et al. A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:632-41.https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23563

Hill JC, Whitehurst DGT, Lewis M, Bryan S, Dunn KM, Foster NE, et al. Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011;378:1560-71.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60937-9

Bier JD, Ostelo RW, Van Hooff ML, Koes BW, Verhagen AP. Validity and reproducibility of the STarT Back Tool (Dutch Version) in patients with low back pain in primary care settings. Phys Ther 2017;97:561-70.https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzx023

Bier JD, Ostelo R, Koes BW, Verhagen AP. Validity and reproducibility of the modified STarT Back Tool (Dutch version) for patients with neck pain in primary care. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2017;31:22-9.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2017.06.006

Wiangkham T, Phungwattanakul N, Thongbai N, Situy N, Polchaika T, Kongmee I, Thongnoi D, Chaisang R, Suwanmongkhon W. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Thai version of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with non-specific low back pain. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2021 Dec;22:1-10.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04347-w

Guzman J, Hurwitz EL, Carroll LJ, Haldeman S, Côté P, Carragee EJ, et al. A new conceptual model of neck pain: linking onset, course, and care: the bone and joint decade 2000-2010 task force on neck pain and its associated disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:S14-23.https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181643efb

Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC, et al. COSMIN study design checklist for patient-reported outcome measurement instruments [Internet]. 2019[cited 2021 Jan 20, 2021]. Avalable from: https://www.cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMIN-study-designing checklist_final.pdf

Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:34-42.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012

Wiangkham T, Phungwattanakul N, Tedsombun P, Kongmee I, Suwanmongkhon W, Chidnok W. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Thai version of the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire in patients with non-specific neck pain. Scand J Pain 2021;21:247-55.https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2020-0116

Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15:155-63.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

Beckerman H, Roebroeck M, Lankhorst G, Becher J, Bezemer PD, Verbeek A. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual Life Res 2001;10:571-8.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013138911638

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000;25:3186-91.https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014

Abedi M, Manshadi FD, Khalkhali M, Mousavi SJ, Baghban AA, Montazeri A, et al. Translation and validation of the Persian version of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Man Ther 2015;20:850-4.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2015.04.006

Matsudaira K, Oka H, Kikuchi N, Haga Y, Sawada T, Tanaka S. Psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the STarT back tool in patients with low back pain. PLoS One 2016;11:1-14.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152019

Piironen S, Paananen M, Haapea M, Hupli M, Zitting P, Ryynänen K, et al. Transcultural adaption and psychometric properties of the STarT Back Screening Tool among Finnish low back pain patients. Eur Spine J 2016;25:287-95.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3804-6

Luan S, Min Y, Li G, Lin C, Li X, Wu S, et al. Crosscultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Chinese version of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with low back pain. Spine 2014;39:E974-9.https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000413

Pilz B, Vasconcelos RA, Marcondes FB, Lodovichi SS, Mello W, Grossi DB. The Brazilian version of STarT Back Screening Tool-translation, cross-cultural adaptation and reliability. Braz J Phys Ther 2014;18:453-61.

https://doi.org/10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0028

Downloads

Published

2023-07-18

How to Cite

1.
Phungwattanakul N, Boonyapo U, Wiangkham T. Reliability of the Thai version of the modified STarT Back Screening Tool in individuals with neck pain. Chula Med J [Internet]. 2023 Jul. 18 [cited 2024 May 20];66(4). Available from: https://he05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/CMJ/article/view/96