Morris Disability Questionnaire Research Articles

Low back pain in general practice: cost-effectiveness of a minimal psychosocial intervention versus usual care

An intervention that can prevent low back pain (LBP) becoming chronic, may not only prevent great discomfort for patients, but also save substantial costs for the society. Psychosocial factors appear to be of importance in the transition of acute to chronic LBP. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of an intervention aimed at psychosocial factors to usual care in patients with (sub)acute LBP. The study design was an economic evaluation alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial, conducted from a societal perspective with a follow-up of 1 year. Sixty general practitioners in 41 general practices recruited 314 patients with non-specific LBP of less than 12 weeks’ duration. General practitioners in the minimal intervention strategy (MIS) group explored and discussed psychosocial prognostic factors. Usual care (UC) was not protocolized. Clinical outcomes were functional disability (Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire), perceived recovery and health-related quality of life (EuroQol). Cost data consisted of direct and indirect costs and were measured by patient cost diaries and general practitioner registration forms. Complete cost data were available for 80% of the patients. Differences in clinical outcomes between both the groups were small and not statistically significant. Differences in cost data were in favor of MIS. However, the complete case analysis and the sensitivity analyses with imputed cost data were inconsistent with regard to the statistical significance of this difference in cost data. This study presents conflicting points of view regarding the cost-effectiveness of MIS. We conclude that (Dutch) general practitioners, as yet, should not replace their usual care by this new intervention.

Relationship Between Spinal Mobility, Physical Performance, Pain Intensity and Functional Disability In Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain

Background: Physiotherapy clinical assessment has traditionally relied on clinical tests of impairment. These tests correlate poorly with patients’ pain and dysfunction, especially in the case of chronic pain. This study was designed to investigate the correlation between some of these tests in patients with chronic low back pain.
 
 Methodology: Twenty-three patients (16 males, 7 females) with chronic low back pain participated in the study. Roland- Morris Disability Questionnaire (R-MDQ), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Physical Performance Battery (PPB) were used to collect data. The spinal range of motion was assessed using a tape measure and a goniometer. Data analysis was done using Pearson Moment Product correlation coefficient and Spearman’s Rank.
 
 Results: Statistical analysis showed that there was a significant inverse correlation between repeated trunk flexion and anterior trunk flexion (r = -0.488, p

Reflexology in the management of low back pain: A pilot randomised controlled trial

The current study was designed as a pilot study for a randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of reflexology in the management of low back pain (LBP). Participants suffering non-specific LBP were recruited and randomised into either a reflexology or a sham group. Patients and outcome assessor were blinded to group allocation. Each patient received either a 40 min reflexology treatment or sham treatment (according to group allocation) once per week for six consecutive weeks. The primary outcome measure was pain (visual analogue scale), secondary outcome measures were the McGill pain questionnaire, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, and SF-36 health survey. Outcome measures were performed at baseline, week 6, week 12 and week 18. VAS scores for pain reduced in the treatment group by a median value of 2.5 cm, with minimal change in the sham group (0.2 cm). Secondary outcome measures produced an improvement in both groups (McGill pain questionnaire: 18 points in the reflexology group and 11.5 points in the sham group). Results indicate that reflexology may have a positive effect on LBP. Reflexology appears to offer promise as a treatment in the management of LBP; however, an adequately powered trial is required before any more definitive pronouncements are possible.

Acupuncture for acute non-specific low back pain: A pilot randomised non-penetrating sham controlled trial

A pilot study to assess the feasibility of a trial to investigate the efficacy of acupuncture compared to placebo needling for the treatment of acute low back pain (LBP). As part of this, the study was designed to establish the credibility of the placebo control, and to provide data to inform a power analysis to determine numbers for a future trial. A pilot patient and assessor blinded randomized controlled trial. Primary care health centre facility, South and East Belfast Trust, Northern Ireland. Patients from the physiotherapy waiting list (n=48) with LBP of less than 12 weeks duration. Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), medication use and an exit questionnaire were completed at baseline, end of treatment, and at 3 months follow up. Ninety-four percent (45/48) of patients completed assigned treatment, 83% (40/48) completed 3 months follow-up. The sham needle used here proved to be credible: 91.7% in the placebo group believed they had received acupuncture, compared to 95.8% in the verum acupuncture group. Differences in baseline characteristics were accounted for using ANCOVA. There was no significant difference between groups on the RMDQ over time. For pain, the only statistically significant difference was at the 3 months follow up (worst VAS, point estimate, 18.7, 95% CI 1.5-36.0, p=0.034). The majority of patients were taking some form of analgesic medication for LBP at the start of treatment (n=44; 92%), and at the end of treatment the verum acupuncture group were taking significantly fewer tablets of pain control medication (mean (S.D.): 1.0+/-0.3) than the placebo group (mean (S.D.): 4.2+/-0.6, p<0.05). Based upon these data, power analysis (power=90%, alpha=0.05, minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for RMDQ=2.5 points) indicated that 120 participants (60 per group) would be needed to complete an adequately powered randomized controlled trial. This study has demonstrated the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of penetrating needle acupuncture compared to a non-penetrating sham for the treatment of acute LBP in primary care; 120 participants would be required in a fully powered trial. The placebo needle used in this study proved to be a credible form of control.

Differential item functioning impact in a modified version of the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire

To evaluate a modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for differential item functioning (DIF) related to several covariates. DIF occurs in an item when, after controlling for the underlying trait measured by the test, the probability of endorsing the item varies across groups. Secondary data analysis of two studies of participants with back pain (total n = 875). We used a hybrid item response theory/ logistic regression approach for detecting DIF. We obtained scores that accounted for DIF. We evaluated the impact of DIF on individual and group scores, and compared scores that ignored or accounted for DIF in terms of the strength of association with SF-36 subscale scores. DIF was found in 18/23 items. Salient scale-level differential functioning was found related to age, education, and employment. Overall 24 participants (3%) had salient scale-level differential functioning. Mean scores across demographic groups differed minimally when accounting for DIF. The strength of association of scores with SF-36 scores was similar for scores that ignored and scores that accounted for DIF. The modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire appears to have largely negligible DIF related to the covariates assessed here.

A brief pain management program compared with physical therapy for low back pain: Results from an economic analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial

Guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care recommend early intervention to address psychosocial risk factors associated with long-term disability. We assessed the cost utility and cost effectiveness of a brief pain management program (BPM) targeting psychosocial factors compared with physical therapy (PT) for primary care patients with low back pain of <12 weeks' duration. A total of 402 patients were randomly assigned to BPM or PT. We adopted a health care perspective, examining the direct health care costs of low back pain. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 12-month change scores on the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire. Resource use data related to back pain were collected at 12-month followup. Cost effectiveness was expressed as incremental ratios, with uncertainty assessed using cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves. There were no statistically significant differences in mean health care costs or outcomes between treatments. PT had marginally greater effectiveness at 12 months, albeit with greater health care costs (BPM 142 pounds, PT 195 pounds). The incremental cost-per-QALY ratio was 2,362 pounds. If the UK National Health Service were willing to pay 10,000 pound per additional QALY, there is only a 17% chance that BPM provides the best value for money. PT is a cost-effective primary care management strategy for low back pain. However, the absence of a clinically superior treatment program raises the possibility that BPM could provide an additional primary care approach, administered in fewer sessions, allowing patient and doctor preferences to be considered.

Early Access to Physical Therapy Treatment for Subacute Low Back Pain in Primary Health Care

To evaluate the effects of early access (EA) to physical therapy treatment for patients with subacute low back pain compared to access with a 4-week waiting list. A prospective, randomized clinical trial. Primary health care. Sixty consecutive patients with subacute low back pain. Patients were randomized either to EA within 2 days for physical examination and individualized physical therapy treatment (n=32) or a control group with a 4-week waiting list (n=28). Self-administrated questionnaires were used for assessment at inclusion, at discharge, and at 6 months. Primary outcome measure was pain intensity assessed by Borg category scale for ratings of perceived pain. Secondary outcomes included the Orebro musculoskeletal pain screening questionnaire, the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire, sick-leave, visits to health care, and physical therapy. The results showed no significant differences in pain between the groups at discharge. At 6 months, the reduction of pain was significantly greater in the EA group compared to the control group (P=0.025). Changes in secondary outcome measures were not significantly different between groups. This study indicated that EA to physical therapy resulted in greater improvement in perceived pain at 6 months compared to later access. In this study, EA to physical therapy could be introduced by reorganization without additional resources.

Prognostic factors in first-time care seekers due to acute low back pain

There is limited knowledge on prognostic factors for developing chronic low back pain (LBP) at an early stage of LBP. The objectives of this study were to investigate the clinical course of pain and disability, and prognostic factors for non-recovery after 1-year, in patients seeking help for the first time due to acute LBP. An inception cohort study included 123 patients with acute LBP lasting less than 3 weeks and consulting primary care for the first time. Main outcome measures were pain intensity, Roland–Morris disability questionnaire (RMQ), and sickness absence. Eleven patients (9%) did not return for the 12-month follow-up. There were large and significant reductions in pain intensity ( P < 0.001) and RMQ scores ( P < 0.001) during follow-up. Patients with neurological signs showed significantly less improvement in pain ( P = 0.001) and RMQ ( P = 0.004) compared with those without neurological signs. The proportions with sickness absence due to LBP at 6, 9, and 12 months were 7%, 8%, and 9%, respectively. At 12 months, 17% of patients had not fully recovered. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that high scores on a psychosocial screening (acute low back pain screening questionnaire) and emotional distress (Hopkin’s symptom check list) were significantly associated with non-recovery at 12 months, with odds ratios of 4.4 (95% confidence interval 1.1–17.4) and 3.3 (1.1–10.2), respectively.

Treatment of low back pain by acupressure and physical therapy: randomised controlled trial

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of acupressure in terms of disability, pain scores, and functional status.Design Randomised controlled trial.Setting Orthopaedic clinic in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.Participants 129 patients with chronic low back...

Efficacy of etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day in reduction of pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain: results of a 4‐week, multinational, randomized, double-blind study

ABSTRACTBackground and methods: The efficacy and safety of etoricoxib 60 mg/day in patients with established chronic low back pain (CLBP) were compared with those of diclofenac 150 mg/day in a 4‐week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Four hundred and forty-six adult patients with CLBP (Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders Class 1 or 2) and with worsening pain upon discontinuation of pre-study analgesic medication were enrolled in the study.The study primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in Low Back Pain Intensity Scale (LBP‐IS) score over the 4‐week treatment period. Secondary and other efficacy endpoints included: changes in Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) and Low Back Pain Bothersomeness Scale (LBP-BS) scores. Early efficacy was assessed using PGART and LBP‐IS scores 4 h after the first dose on the mornings of Days 1, 2 and 3. The overall safety and tolerability of etoricoxib 60 mg/day during 4 weeks of treatment were also assessed.Results: The least-squares mean time-weighted change from baseline LBP‐IS score over 4 weeks was –32.94 mm (95% CI –36.25, –29.63) for etoricoxib, indicating substantial efficacy in relief of pain. The treatment difference for the primary outcome was 2.51 mm (95% CI –1.50, 6.51), fulfilling the prespecified equivalence criterion of 95% confidence interval wholly within ± 10 mm. Etoricoxib improved all secondary and other efficacy outcomes.There were no statistically significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients with one or more clinical adverse events (AEs) (etoricoxib 35%, diclofenac 39%), or the proportion of patients who discontinued due to AEs (etoricoxib 7%, diclofenac 5%).Conclusions: The results of this study confirm that, for adult patients with CLBP, etoricoxib 60 mg once daily over 4 weeks is effective for relief of pain and improvement of physical function and comparable to high-dose diclofenac 150 mg daily.

Complementary therapies in clinical practice

Objective: To conduct a pilot trial of yoga for the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP) to inform the feasibility and practicality of conducting a full-scale trial in the UK; and to assess the efficacy of yoga for the treatment of chronic low back pain. Design: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial was undertaken comparing yoga to usual care. Participants: Twenty participants who had presented to their GP with chronic low back pain in the previous 18 months were recruited via GP records from one practice in York, UK. Interventions: Twenty patients were randomised to either 12 weekly 75-min sessions of specialised yoga plus written advice, or usual care plus written advice. Allocation was 50/50. Main outcome measures: Recruitment rate, levels of intervention attendance, and loss to follow-up were the main non-clinical outcomes. Change as measured by the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire was the primary clinical outcome. Changes in the Aberdeen back pain scale, SF-12, EQ-5D, and pain selfefficacy were secondary clinical outcomes. Data were collected via postal questionnaire at baseline, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks follow-up. Results: Of the 286 patients identified from the GP database, 52 (18%) consented and returned the eligibility questionnaire, out of these 20 (6.9%) were eligible and randomised. The total percentage of patients randomised from the GP practice population was 0.28%. Ten patients were randomised to yoga, receiving an average of 1.7 sessions (range 0e5), and 10 were randomised to usual care. At 12 weeks follow-up data was received from 60% of patients in the yoga group and 90% of patients in the usual care group (75% overall). No significant differences were seen between groups in clinical outcomes apart from on the Aberdeen back pain scale at four weeks follow-up where the yoga group reported significantly less pain. Conclusion: This pilot study provided useful data and information to inform the design and development of a full-scale trial of yoga for CLBP in the UK. A key finding is the calculation of GP practice total list size required for patient recruitment in a full-scale trial, and the need to implement methods to increase class attendance.

Responsiveness of the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire: consequences of using different external criteria

To determine the consequences of using different external criteria on responsiveness of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) in patients with chronic low back pain. Questionnaire measures before and after rehabilitation treatment. Rehabilitation centre. Patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain, referred for treatment. The RMDQ was used to assess self-reported functional status. The used external criteria were: (1) global perceived effect of change in complaints; (2) global perceived effect of change in ability to take care of oneself; (3) change in rating of pain intensity; (4) smallest real difference. Standardized response means, pooled effect sizes and receiver operating curves were calculated to determine responsiveness and to enable comparison of effect sizes with the thresholds of Cohen. Standardized response means ranged from 1.33 to 3.45, pooled effect sizes ranged from 1.50 to 2.81, and areas under curves ranged from 0.76 to 1.00, dependent on the used external criterion. All pooled effect sizes were well above 0.80, and all other statistics were high, indicating good responsiveness of the RMDQ. However, considerable differences were found in responsiveness, when using different external criteria in a same study population. Therefore, it can be concluded that the magnitude of the responsiveness statistic depends on the used external criteria.

Comparison of physical treatments versus a brief pain-management programme for back pain in primary care: a randomised clinical trial in physiotherapy practice

Recommendations for the management of low back pain in primary care emphasise the importance of recognising and addressing psychosocial factors at an early stage. We compared the effectiveness of a brief pain-management programme with physiotherapy incorporating manual therapy for the reduction of disability at 12 months in patients consulting primary care with subacute low back pain. For this pragmatic, multicentre, randomised clinical trial, eligible participants consulted primary care with non-specific low back pain of less than 12 weeks' duration. They were randomly assigned either a programme of pain management (n=201) or manual therapy (n=201). The primary outcome was change in the score on the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire at 12 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. Of 544 patients assessed for eligibility, 402 were recruited (mean age 40.6 years) and 329 (82%) reached 12-month follow-up. Mean disability scores were 13.8 (SD 4.8) for the pain-management group and 13.3 (4.9) for the manual-therapy group. The mean decreases in disability scores were 8.8 (6.4) and 8.8 (6.1) at 12 months (difference 0 [95% CI -1.3 to 1.4], p=0.99), and median numbers of physiotherapy visits per patient were three (IQR one to five) and four (two to five), respectively (p=0.001). One adverse reaction (an exacerbation of pain after the initial assessment) was recorded. Brief pain management techniques delivered by appropriately trained clinicians offer an alternative to physiotherapy incorporating manual therapy and could provide a more efficient first-line approach for management of non-specific subacute low back pain in primary care.

Psychological distress confirmed as predictor of long-term back-related functional limitations in primary care settings

Background and Objective Among the possible predictors of back pain outcomes that have been studied, indices of psychological distress have been found to have a high prognostic value. This study aimed at assessing the validity of a predictive model of long-term back-related functional limitations that is based on psychological distress, in a new sample of subjects. Study Design and Setting The study was conducted with 860 French-speaking workers who consulted for nonspecific back pain in primary care settings of the Quebec City area. They were interviewed at baseline and again 2 years later. Psychological distress and back-related functional limitations were measured respectively with items drawn from the Symptom Checklist 90 Revised and the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire. Analyses were conducted by forcing the model previously developed on a sample of English-speaking health maintenance organization (HMO) members of Washington state. Results The model correctly classified 82% of subjects as to their functional limitation status at 2 years. The accuracy of the prediction was similar to that reported in the original study. Conclusion The fact that this predictive model of back-related functional limitations led to similar results in a different sample of subjects and in another language brings strong support to its validity.

Predicting Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Low Back Pain

Cross-sectional surveys of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with low back pain at ambulatory clinics plus 8 weeks of follow-up. The objective of this study is to predict the HRQOL in patients with low back pain. There is disagreement on the relative contribution of pain, physical impairment, functional status, and psychological factors on the disability and HRQOL in patients with low back pain. Data were collected from 232 patients with low back pain who were consecutively recruited from several clinics of physical medicine and rehabilitation. Every patient received physical examination and completed a set of questionnaire, including the Taiwan version of the Brief Questionnaire of the World Health Organization on quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF), Modified Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire, and visual analogue scale for pain intensity and for HRQOL. These patients were observed with a mail questionnaire 8 weeks later. The results of WHOQOL-BREF were also compared to those obtained from another 213 healthy volunteers who were accompanied persons with patients, volunteer workers in hospitals, and hospital employees. Results showed that there were significant correlations of HRQOL with pain intensity, disability scale, and disability days. Among the results of physical examination, lumbosacral radiculopathy was the only factor with moderate correlation with HRQOL. The significant predictors for HRQOL included physical domain, psychological domain, pain intensity, and family income. Among all the 232 study patients, 100 of them responded to the follow-up questionnaire. Changes in environmental domain, disability days, educational level, receiving herb drugs, and physiotherapy were the significant predictors for the changes of HRQOL. The HRQOL of patients with low back pain depended on functional status and psychological factors more than simple physical impairment. Future intervention may need to put more emphasis on improving functional status and psychological stress for these patients.

Early Intervention for the Management of Acute Low Back Pain

A single blind randomized controlled trial comparing two models of care for patients with acute simple low back pain. To compare two research-based models of care for acute low back pain and investigate the effect of the timing of physical intervention. National guidelines offer conflicting information on the delivery of physical treatment in the management of acute low back pain. The guidelines suggest two different models of care. Direct comparisons between these models are lacking in the literature. The present study aims to compare these approaches to the management of acute low back pain. Among 804 referred patients, 102 subjects met the specific admission criteria and were randomly assigned to an "assess/advise/treat" group or an "assess/advise/wait" group. The intervention consisted of biopsychosocial education, manual therapy, and exercise. Assessment of short-term outcome enables comparison to be made between intervention and advice to stay active. Assessment of long-term outcome enables comparison to be made between early and late intervention. Study outcomes of reported pain (Visual Analogue Scale), functional disability (the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire), mood (Modified Zung Self Rated Depression Score, Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), general health (Euroqol), and quality of life (Short Form 36) were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. At 6 weeks, the assess/advise/treat group demonstrated greater improvements in disability, mood, general health, and quality of life than patients in the assess/advise/wait group (P < 0.05). Disability and pain were not significantly different between the groups at long-term follow up (P > 0.05). However, mood, general health, and quality of life remained significantly better in the assess/advise/treat group (P < 0.05). At short-term, intervention is more effective than advice on staying active, leading to more rapid improvement in function, mood, quality of life, and general health. The timing of intervention affects the development of psychosocial features. If treatment is provided later, the same psychosocial benefits are not achieved. Therefore, an assess/advise/treat model of care seems to offer better outcomes than an assess/advise/wait model of care.

Randomised controlled trial of physiotherapy compared with advice for low back pain

Objective To measure the effectiveness of routine physiotherapy compared with an assessment session and advice from a physiotherapist for patients with low back pain.Design Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.Setting Seven...

A longitudinal, community-based study of low back pain outcomes.

To assess the report of low back pain (LBP) over 1 year and its predictors in individuals reporting symptoms during an initial cross-sectional survey. A longitudinal community-based study. The natural history of LBP is poorly understood. Different studies report various rates of persistent and recurrent symptoms as well as different predictors of outcomes. Subjects from a single town in Israel reporting low back pain during the previous month were followed up after 2 and 12 months. The primary outcome was experiencing LBP and the secondary outcomes were pain and functional status as measured by the Roland & Morris Disability questionnaire and Pain Symptoms Frequency and Bothersomeness Indexes. More than three fourths reported LBP (different levels of severity) after 2 and 12 months. This group did not show an improvement in pain measures. Baseline pain characteristics and perception of general health were predictors of both primary and secondary outcomes. Work satisfaction and experiencing a negative event during the past months were also predictors of the secondary outcomes. In this community-based study, LBP symptoms after 1 year are common and symptoms of those experiencing LBP at follow up do not improve over time. Predictors of experiencing LBP and of LBP symptoms after 1 year included baseline pain characteristics and psychosocial factors.

Etoricoxib reduced pain and disability and improved quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain: a 3 month, randomized, controlled trial

Background: Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a growing health problem. Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to treat this condition, but have not demonstrated efficacy beyond 2 weeks, and no studies have shown that NSAIDs produce durable improvements in disability.Methods: To evaluate the efficacy and durability of effect of etoricoxib for chronic LBP, a randomized, double blind, placebo‐controlled trial was conducted at 46 centres. Three hundred and twenty‐five patients with chronic LBP requiring treatment with an NSAID or paracetamol were randomized 1:1:1 to etoricoxib 60 mg (n=109), 90 mg (n=106), or placebo (n=110), daily for 3 months. Pre‐specified endpoints over 3 months included LBP intensity scale (visual analog scale 0–100 mm) time‐weighted average change from baseline, the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the LBP bothersomeness scale, patient and investigator global assessments, and measures of quality of life.Results: Both etoricoxib groups experienced significant reductions in LBP intensity at 4 weeks versus placebo [−15.15 mm and −13.03 mm for 60 and 90 mg, respectively, probability (p)<0.001 for each], which was maintained over 3 months. Treatment resulted in significant improvement from baseline compared to placebo in RMDQ scores (etoricoxib 60 mg, −2.82 and 90 mg, −2.38, p<0.001 for each) over 12 weeks and most other efficacy endpoints. There were no significant differences between treatments in incidence of adverse events (AEs) or discontinuations due to AEs.Conclusion: Etoricoxib provided significant relief of symptoms and disability associated with chronic LBP detected at 1 week, confirmed at 4 weeks, and maintained over 3 months. Reductions in chronic LBP severity corresponded to improvements in physical functioning and quality of life. All treatments were generally well tolerated.

Physical activities and low back pain: a community-based study.

Very little is known about the relationship between physical activity and low back pain (LBP) in general populations. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between different dimensions of physical activity and LBP among all adults of a defined community. A cross-sectional survey addressed all adults aged 22-70 of a single town. Inhabitants were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire regarding physical activities, LBP, and related characteristics. The Beacke Physical Activity Questionnaire evaluated physical activity, and the Modified Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire, a pain severity scale, and the Pain Symptoms Frequency and Bothersomeness Indices evaluated LBP. High occupational activity demands contributed to increased LBP prevalence, and, conversely, high sporting activity participation contributed to a decline in all LBP measures. Subjects free of LBP and subjects who participate in sporting activities are more likely not to smoke and not to participate in high occupational activity demands. Type of sporting activity was not associated with LBP prevalence or severity. Different dimensions of physical activity yield different relationships to LBP. There are several shared characteristics of those participating in sport on a regular basis and those free of LBP. Both groups present a healthier lifestyle. Although LBP was less frequent among those who participate in sporting activities, participating in sporting activities did not contribute independently to a lower prevalence of LBP. However, once LBP was established, participating in sporting activities contributed indirectly to its severity.