Skip to content


  • Study protocol
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Determinants of the clinical course of musculoskeletal complaints in general practice: design of a cohort study

  • 1Email author,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1, 2,
  • 1 and
  • 1, 3
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders20034:3

  • Received: 24 October 2002
  • Accepted: 24 February 2003
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports



Musculoskeletal complaints are frequent and have large consequences for public health. Information about the prognosis after presentation in general practice is far from complete. Knowledge about determinants of the clinical course of musculoskeletal complaints is essential for management decisions and to inform patients about their prognosis. The purpose of this study is to provide information about the prognosis of musculoskeletal complaints other than low back pain by studying the course of these complaints in general practice and to identify determinants of this course.


Patients of 18 years and older, who present in general practice with a new episode of a musculoskeletal complaint of the neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, arm, hip, knee, ankle or foot, are recruited by their general practitioner (GP). Participants will receive complaint-specific questionnaires by mail at baseline and after 3, 6, 12 and 18 months. The following putative determinants of the course of the complaints will be investigated: sociodemographic characteristics, characteristics of the complaint, psychosocial job characteristics, physical workload, physical activity during leisure time, pain coping, mood, kinesiophobia, social support, optimism. The primary outcomes are perceived recovery, pain, functional status, sick leave and overall quality of life.


  • Sick Leave
  • Neck Pain
  • Musculoskeletal Complaint
  • Pain Coping
  • Observational Prospective Cohort Study


Musculoskeletal complaints are a frequent health problem. The point prevalence among adults in the general population in the Netherlands is estimated at 45%[1]. In the Netherlands, every year 109 patients per 1000 persons visit their general practitioner (GP) with a new episode of musculoskeletal complaints [2]. Musculoskeletal complaints have great consequences for public health, because of their strong impact on functional disability, health care costs, sick leave and work disability. In the Netherlands, almost 26% of the functional disability in the population can be attributed to musculoskeletal disease [3]. About 6% of the total healthcare costs are spent on musculoskeletal problems [4]. In Sweden and Great Britain 30% of all sick-leave days and work disability are due to musculoskeletal problems [5, 6].

In Dutch public health care, the GP serves as a filter, as all referrals to specialists, physiotherapists and most other health care providers need confirmation by a GP. This implies that the GP has to distinguish complaints with need of specialist care from those that can be managed in primary care. Such decisions require information about the risk of developing chronic pain and disability in relevant subgroups of patients. However, information about the determinants of the prognosis of musculoskeletal complaints, which is necessary to inform patients, and to decide on content of care and referrals, is far from complete.

The course of low back pain has already received much attention, and has been studied thoroughly [711]. Therefore, low back pain has been excluded from this study. Little information is available about determinants that influence the course after presentation in primary care of almost all other musculoskeletal complaints. Studies on prognosis are mostly performed in specific populations; for example in a specific group of employees [12, 13]. or patients attending specialist care [13]. These results are not applicable in general practice [14].

From the limited amount of available evidence a few putative determinants of the course of musculoskeletal complaints can be derived, including severity and duration of the complaint, and some intra-individual factors and extra-individual (environmental) factors [13, 15, 16]. More severe pain and previous neck pain were associated with a worse prognosis of neck pain in the study of Borghouts et al. [13] Ariëns et al [17] reported a positive association between neck pain and the following work-related physical risk factors: neck flexion, arm force, arm posture, duration of sitting, twisting or bending of the trunk, hand-arm vibration and workplace design. Windt et al. [18] observed that a high risk of persistent or recurrent shoulder complaints was found for patients with concomitant neck pain and severe pain during the day. In the study of Jørgensen et al. [15] psychological distress acted as a determinant of physical health change, sick leave and patient self-rated improvement in patients with musculoskeletal illness. Macfarlane et al. [19] reported disability as a determinant of continuing symptoms of shoulder pain. Avoiding physical activity had a negative effect on long-term functional status in early rheumatoid arthritis according to Evers et al. [20] and Lankveld et al. [21] Psychosocial variables, such as depressive symptoms or inadequate pain behavior, have not often been taken into account, although these factors have been shown to be related to a high risk of chronicity in low back pain [22]. So far, the majority of research has evaluated the prognostic value of clinical characteristics (symptoms and signs), whereas little attention has been given to the potential prognostic value of psychosocial and occupational factors.

We used the "disablement process" of Verbrugge [23] as a framework for studying determinants and outcomes in the present study (Figure 1). This conceptual model describes how chronic and acute conditions affect functioning in specific body systems, fundamental physical and mental actions, and activities of daily life. Furthermore, it describes the intra-individual and extra-individual factors that may influence functioning.
Figure 1
Figure 1

The conceptual framework of the study

The purpose of this study is to provide knowledge about the course of musculoskeletal complaints other than low back pain in general practice and to identify determinants of this course.



The study is designed as an observational prospective cohort study in general practice. At baseline and after 3, 6, 12 and 18 months of follow-up, individual patient data are collected by means of self-administered questionnaires. The Medical Ethics Committee of the VU University Medical Center approved the study protocol.

Study population

Patients are eligible for participation in the study if they meet the following inclusion criteria: patients who visit their general practitioner with a new complaint or new episode of complaint of the neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, arm, hip, knee, ankle or foot; 18 years or above and capable of filling in Dutch questionnaires. An episode of complaint is considered 'new' if patients have not visited their GP for the same complaint during the preceding 3 months. Patients are excluded from the study if a fracture, malignancy, prosthesis, amputation or congenital defect causes the presented complaint and if patients are pregnant. Patients can be included in the study only once.

Inclusion procedure

The study is embedded in the 2nd Dutch National Survey of General Practice (NS2), carried out by the Netherlands Institute of Primary Health Care (NIVEL) [24]. A number of 200 GPs from 104 practices participate in the NS2. A total of 52 GPs (from 29 practices), who started first with the NS2, participate in our study. These GPs all use ICPC codes (International Classification of Primary Care) to classify the main complaint of each patient at each consultation[25]. A selection of ICPC codes was made to identify patients with musculoskeletal complaints (Table 1). When the GP enters one of these ICPC codes into the computer during the consultation, a pop-up screen appears with a reminder of our study. The GP has a card available with the selection criteria in the office. Patients who are eligible for participation are informed about the study by their GP. If they show interest, they receive a brochure about the study. Subsequently, they fill in a preliminary consent form in which they allow their name and address to be released to the investigators, and indicate the location of their complaint on a manikin. In addition, patients are asked to select one of 3 categories that best represented their complaint: neck/upper extremity, hip/knee or foot/ankle. Patients with generalized pain or pain in multiple locations are asked to indicate at which location the complaints are most severe or most troublesome, and were reason to consult their GP. Finally, this preliminary consent form is faxed to the investigators.
Table 1

International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) codes, selected for inclusion


Neck Symptoms/Complaints


Shoulder Symptoms/Complaints


Arm Symptoms/Complaints


Elbow Symptoms/Complaints


Wrist Symptoms/Complaints


Hand/Finger Symptoms/Complaints


Hip Symptoms/Complaints


Leg/Thigh Symptoms/Complaints


Knee Symptoms/Complaints


Ankle Symptoms/Complaints


Foot/Toe Symptoms/Complaints


Muscle Pain/Fibrositis


Other Symptoms, Multiple/Unspecified Muscle


Symptoms Multiple/Unspecified Joints




Other & Multiple Musculoskeletal Symptoms


Sprain Of Ankle/Foot


Sprains/Strains of Knees


Sprains/Strains Other Joints




Other Injury Musculoskeletal


Syndrome Of Cervical Spine


Osteoarthritis Spine


Acquired Deformities Of Spine


Ganglion Joint/Tendon


Rheumatoid Arthritis


Osteoarthritis Hip


Osteoarthritis Knee


Other Osteoarthritis


Shoulder Syndrome


Tennis Elbow


Osgood-Schlatter, Osteochondritis




Acute Meniscus/Ligament Knee


Chronic Internal Knee Derangement


Acquired Deformities Limbs


Other Musculoskeletal/Connective Disorder


Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

When the pop-up screen appears, the GP indicates if the patient has been given a brochure, meets the selection criteria, and has given preliminary consent. With this information, we gain insight into the non-response and the external validity of our findings. Each GP includes patients during a period of 3 months.

If this procedure does not result in a sufficiently large number of participants (see below), the GPs will be asked to extend the inclusion period. Furthermore, additional GPs will be recruited outside the setting of NS2. These additional GPs will follow the same inclusion procedure, although the supporting NS2 software, which includes the pop-up reminder screen, is not available to these GPs.

Mailing procedure

After receiving a preliminary consent form, the investigators send additional information about the study and a final consent form to the patient. Also the baseline questionnaire is included in this package. Patients who are unwilling to participate are asked to return a non-response card. In order to increase the response rate, participants who have not returned the questionnaire within 10 days are contacted by telephone. Patients, who return an incomplete questionnaire, are contacted to complete the questionnaire by telephone interview. In addition, small incentives (coffee, tea and candies) are presented to the participants.


Depending on the complaint marked on the fax, patients receive a complaint-specific questionnaire. Three different kinds of questionnaires have been developed: questionnaires for 1) complaints of the neck and upper extremities, 2) complaints of the hip or knee, 3) complaints of the ankle or foot.

Based on the model of Verbrugge and information derived from preceding studies, the influence of the following intra-individual determinants on the course of the complaints will be investigated: sociodemographic characteristics, characteristics of the complaint, comorbidity, pain coping, mood, kinesiophobia and optimism. The following extra-individual determinants will be investigated: psychosocial job characteristics, physical workload, physical activity during leisure time and social support. The content of the questionnaires is shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Content of the questionnaires


measured in questionnaire

outcome measure


at baseline

at 3 months

at 6 months

at 12 months

at 18 months

- characteristics of

the complaint

- questions about severity and duration of the complaint (Where and how long do you have complaints? What do you think is the cause of your complaints? Did you visit any kind of doctor, therapist, or social worker? Did you use any medication to relieve your complaint during the past 3 months? What did your GP do concerning your complaint? Have you had the complaint before during the past year? How often did your complaint bother you during the past 3 months? Do you have any other complaints?)






- pain

- 11-point numerical rating scale [31]






- perceived recovery

- 6-point rating scale (completely recovered, much improved, improved, no change, worse, much worse) [31]






- functioning

- scales from the SF-36[26]: physical and emotional role-functioning







- all scales of SF-36




- complaint specific functioning

1. upper extremities and neck

2. hip or knee

- ankle or foot

- complaint specific questionnaires

1. based on the Pain Free Function questionnaire [28] and the Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale [29]

Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA index (WOMAC) [32, 33]

- Foot Function Index [34]






Sick leave

number of days of absence and reason of absence in past 3 months because of the complaint at issue






Perceived General Health

scale from the SF-36[26]: perceived general health






Perceived overall Quality of life

5-point rating scale






determinants: intra-individual

Sociodemographic characteristics:

age, sex, pregnancy







right-/left-handedness, ethnicity (Dutch, Surinamese, Antillean/Aruban, Turkish, Moroccan), marital status (unmarried/never been married, married/living together, widow, divorced), household composition (number of persons and number of children below 5 years of age), length, weight, smoking behavior (smoking every day, smoking now and then, not smoking but previously every day, not smoking but previously now and then, never smoked), educational level and work status (number of working hours (paid activities) per week; 6-point rating scale), profession/occupation (open question)




list of complaints and diseases [35]



Pain coping

Pain Coping Inventory (PCI) [36]




distress scale from the Four Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) [37],







derived from the Tampa Scale [38, 39]. and the Fear Avoidance and Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) [40]




Life Orientation Test (LOT) [41, 42]





SF-36 vitality scale



determinants: extra-individual

Psychosocial job characteristics

Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) [43]



Physical workload

based on the Dutch Musculoskeletal Questionnaire [44]



Physical activity during leisure time

type of physical activity and how often






Social support

Social Support Scale (SOS) [45]




- actions/advice by the GP (wait and see, drug prescriptions, rest, referral to therapist or specialist, exercises, injection, hot or cold compresses)

- actions by the patient (self-medication)






Outcome measures

The questionnaires will be sent at baseline (approximately 16 pages) and after 3, 6, 12 and 18 months (approximately 8 pages) and contain the following outcome measures: at the level of symptoms, pain is scored on an 11-point numerical rating scale. At the level of disability, functioning is measured with complaint specific questionnaires (Table 2) and subscales of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)[26]: physical role-functioning, emotional role-functioning, after 6, 12 and 18 months of follow-up and the complete SF-36 after 3 months of follow-up. Perceived recovery is scored by the patient on a 6-point rating scale. At the level of handicap, sick leave is measured. At the level of quality of life, perceived general health (subscale of the SF-36) is measured. Overall quality of life is measured on a 5-point rating scale, based on the format of the first question of the perceived general health subscale of the SF-36.

In contrast to hip or knee complaints (WOMAC) or foot problems (Foot Function Index), an upper extremity disability scale, suitable for our study, is not available in Dutch. We considered it important to assess and analyze upper extremity function as one unit (kinetic chain [27]). Therefore, we decided against using several joint-specific questionnaires, and derived a new scale from two existing, validated questionnaires [28, 29]. The face validity of our scale is satisfactory, and other clinimetric properties (internal consistency, validity and responsiveness) will be analyzed within the framework of our cohort study.

Sample size

There are no straightforward rules for computing sample size for observational studies. A guideline that is often being used advises at least 10 patients per determinant[30]. The expected proportion of patients in each category of complaint (according to localization of complaint) is based on the incidence of these complaints in Dutch general practice [2]. Based on these data we expect that patients with hip complaints will comprise the smallest category (5,1%). Participation of 2000 consecutive consulting patients should be sufficient to include 100 patients with hip complaints, which enables the construction of a predictive model for hip complaints that includes 10 predictors.

Statistical analyses

The analysis will initially be conducted separately for different categories of complaints. Three categories of complaints will be made according to localization of the complaint as indicated by the patient questionnaire; 1) complaints of the neck and upper extremities, 2) complaints of the hip or knee, 3) complaints of the ankle or foot. In each category, traumatic (according to ICPC code or cause of the complaint, indicated by the patient as 'accident') vs. non-traumatic, chronic (i.e. symptom duration at least 3 months) versus acute and elderly (65+ years) vs. non-elderly, will be compared. The course of the complaints will be described by means of descriptive statistics. Determinants that influence the course will be determined by means of (logistic) regression analysis and analysis for repeated measurements over time (Generalized Estimating Equations).

Outcome measures will be analyzed separately in different multiple regression analyses. Correlations between potential determinants will be calculated with Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients. In the case of high correlation between 2 determinants only the most predictive determinant in the univariate analyses will be included in the multiple regression models.

The NS2 will provide additional information about all patients who are eligible for the study. This information covers ICPC code, medical consumption and co-morbidity during the 12 months in which the GP participates in the NS2. The information is available for participants of the study as well as for eligible patients who refused to participate. This information will be used to analyze if the group of participants is a good representation of the source population of eligible patients. Furthermore, the information will be used to calculate yearly incidences of all categories of complaints in general practice.


This protocol describes an observational prospective cohort study on the determinants of the course of musculoskeletal complaints in general practice. The results will give GPs indications for optimal treatment and referral. Based on the results of this study, priority can be given to the development and evaluation of intervention strategies in general practice, including medical interventions, ergonomic advice or cognitive-behavioral interventions. Furthermore, the study can contribute to existing Dutch clinical guidelines for General Practice. The intended size of the study population is sufficiently large and the follow-up period is long enough to describe the influence of at least 10 determinants per diagnostic group on the course of complaints over 3 to 18 months. The results of this study will be presented as soon as they are available.



This study is financially supported by the Dutch Arthritis Association.

Authors’ Affiliations

Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Department of General Practice, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands


  1. Valkenburg HA, et al.: Epidemiologisch Preventief Onderzoek Zoetermeer (EPOZ), fifth progress report, part 4. Rotterdam, EUR. 1979Google Scholar
  2. Miedema HS: Reuma-onderzoek meerdere echelons (ROME): basisrapport. Leiden, NIPG-TNO. 1994Google Scholar
  3. Picavet HS, van den Bos GA: The contribution of six chronic conditions to the total burden of mobility disability in the Dutch population. Am J Public Health. 1997, 87: 1680-1682.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Meerding WJ, Bonneux L, Polder JJ, Koopmanschap MA, van der Maas PJ: Demographic and epidemiological determinants of healthcare costs in Netherlands: cost of illness study. BMJ. 1998, 317: 111-115.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Leijon M, Hensing G, Alexanderson K: Gender trends in sick-listing with musculoskeletal symptoms in a Swedish county during a period of rapid increase in sickness absence. Scand J Soc Med. 1998, 26: 204-213. 10.1080/14034949850153518.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Moncrieff J, Pomerleau J: Trends in sickness benefits in Great Britain and the contribution of mental disorders. J Public Health Med. 2000, 22: 59-67. 10.1093/pubmed/22.1.59.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Pincus T, Burton AK, Vogel S, Field AP: A systematic review of psychological factors as predictors of chronicity/disability in prospective cohorts of low back pain. Spine. 2002, 27: E109-E120. 10.1097/00007632-200203010-00017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Thomas E, Silman AJ, Croft PR, Papageorgiou AC, Jayson MI, Macfarlane GJ: Predicting who develops chronic low back pain in primary care: a prospective study. BMJ. 1999, 318: 1662-1667.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Dionne CE, Koepsell TD, Von Korff M, Deyo RA, Barlow WE, Checkoway H: Predicting long-term functional limitations among back pain patients in primary care settings. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997, 50: 31-43. 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00313-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. van den Hoogen HJ, Koes BW, van Eijk JT, Bouter LM, Deville W: On the course of low back pain in general practice: a one year follow up study. Ann Rheum Dis. 1998, 57: 13-19.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Metsemakers JF, Bouter LM: Chronic low back pain in primary care: a prospective study on the management and course. Fam Pract. 1998, 15: 126-132. 10.1093/fampra/15.2.126.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Feveile H, Jensen C, Burr H: Risk factors for neck-shoulder and wrist-hand symptoms in a 5-year follow-up study of 3,990 employees in Denmark. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2002, 75: 243-251. 10.1007/s00420-001-0298-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Borghouts JA, Koes BW, Bouter LM: The clinical course and prognostic factors of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review. Pain. 1998, 77: 1-13. 10.1016/S0304-3959(98)00058-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Furnes O, Lie SA, Espehaug B, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI: Hip disease and the prognosis of total hip replacements. A review of 53,698 primary total hip replacements reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1987–99. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001, 83: 579-586. 10.1302/0301-620X.83B4.11223.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Jorgensen CK, Fink P, Olesen F: Psychological distress and somatisation as prognostic factors in patients with musculoskeletal illness in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2000, 50: 537-541.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Winters JC, Sobel JS, Groenier KH, Arendzen JH, Meyboom-de Jong B: The long-term course of shoulder complaints: a prospective study in general practice. Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999, 38: 160-163. 10.1093/rheumatology/38.2.160.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Ariens GA, van Mechelen W, Bongers PM, Bouter LM, van der WG: Physical risk factors for neck pain. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2000, 26: 7-19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. van der Windt DA, Koes BW, Boeke AJ, Deville W, De Jong BA, Bouter LM: Shoulder disorders in general practice: prognostic indicators of outcome. Br J Gen Pract. 1996, 46: 519-523.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Macfarlane GJ, Hunt IM, Silman AJ: Predictors of chronic shoulder pain: a population based prospective study. J Rheumatol. 1998, 25: 1612-1615.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Evers AW, Kraaimaat FW, Geenen R, Bijlsma JW: Psychosocial predictors of functional change in recently diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis patients. Behav Res Ther. 1998, 36: 179-193. 10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00019-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. van Lankveld W, Naring G, 't Pad BP, van de PL: Behavioral coping and physical functioning: the effect of adjusting the level of activity on observed dexterity. J Rheumatol. 1999, 26: 1058-1064.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Burton AK, Tillotson KM, Main CJ, Hollis S: Psychosocial predictors of outcome in acute and subchronic low back trouble. Spine. 1995, 20: 722-728.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Verbrugge LM, Jette AM: The disablement process. Soc Sci Med. 1994, 38: 1-14. 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90294-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Foets M, van der Velden J, de Bakker D: Dutch National Survey of General Practice: a summary of the survey design. Utrecht, Institute of Primary Health Care (NIVEL). 1992Google Scholar
  25. Lamberts H, Wood M: International classification of primary care. New York, Oxford University Press. 1987Google Scholar
  26. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992, 30: 473-483.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Davis AM, Beaton DE, Hudak P, Amadio P, Bombardier C, Cole D: Measuring disability of the upper extremity: a rationale supporting the use of a regional outcome measure. J Hand Ther. 1999, 12: 269-274.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Stratford P, Levy DR, Levy K, Miseferi D: Extensor carpi radialis tendonitis: a validation of selected outcome meaures. Physiotherapy Can. 1987, 39: 250-255.Google Scholar
  29. Jordan A, Manniche C, Mosdal C, Hindsberger C: The Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998, 21: 520-527.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Altman D: Practical statistics for medical research. London, Chapman and Hall. 1991Google Scholar
  31. van der Windt DA, Koes BW, Deville W, Boeke AJ, De Jong BA, Bouter LM: Effectiveness of corticosteroid injections versus physiotherapy for treatment of painful stiff shoulder in primary care: randomised trial. BMJ. 1998, 317: 1292-1296.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW: Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988, 15: 1833-1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Bellamy N: Pain assessment in osteoarthritis: experience with the WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1989, 18: 14-17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE: The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991, 44: 561-570.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Picavet HS, van Gils HWV, Schouten JSAG: Klachten van het bewegingsapparaat in de Nederlandse bevolking, prevalenties, consequenties en risicogroepen. In RIVM rapportnmmer 26680 Bilthoven, CBS/RIVM. 2000Google Scholar
  36. Kraaimaat FW, Bakker A, Evers AWM: Pain coping strategies in chronic pain patients: the development of the Pain Coping Inventory (PCI). Gedragstherapie. 1997, 30: 185-201.Google Scholar
  37. Terluin B: The Four Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) in general practice. De Psycholoog. 1998, 33: 18-24.Google Scholar
  38. Goubert L, Crombez G, Vlaeyen JW, van Damme S, van den Broeck A, van den Houdenhove B: The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia: Psychometric characteristics and norms. Gedrag en Gezondheid. 2000, 28: 54-62.Google Scholar
  39. Miller RP, Kori SH, Todd DD: The Tampa Scale. Unpublished report. 1991Google Scholar
  40. Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ: A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain. 1993, 52: 157-168. 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90127-B.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Vinck J, Wels G, Arickx M, Vinck J: Assessing optimism in youth: Validation of the Dutch Life Orientation Test. Gedrag en Gezondheid. 1998, 26: 79-90.Google Scholar
  42. Scheier MF, Carver CS: Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol. 1985, 4: 219-247. 10.1037//0278-6133.4.3.219.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B: The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol. 1998, 3: 322-355. 10.1037//1076-8998.3.4.322.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Hildebrandt VH, Douwes M: Physical load and work: questionnire on musculoskeletal load and health complaint (In Dutch: Lichamelijke belasting en arbeid: vragenlijst bewegingsapparaat). Directoraat-Generaal van de Arbeid. 1991, S122-S123.Google Scholar
  45. Feij JA, Doorn CD, van Kampen D, van den Berg PT, Resing WCM: Sensation seeking and social support as moderators of the relationship between life events and physical illness/psychological distress. In Lifestyles stress and health. Edited by: Winnubst JAM, Maes S. 1992, Leiden: DSWO Press, 285-302.Google Scholar
  46. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:


© van der Waal et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2003

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.