An investigation of implicit bias about bending and lifting.

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies in a high-income country have demonstrated that people with and without low back pain (LBP) have an implicit bias that bending and lifting with a flexed lumbar spine is dangerous. These studies present two key limitations: use of a single group per study; people who recovered from back pain were not studied. Our aims were to evaluate: implicit biases between back posture and safety related to bending and lifting in people who are pain-free, have a history of LBP or have current LBP in a middle-income country, and to explore correlations between implicit and explicit measures within groups. METHODS: Exploratory cross-sectional study including 174 participants (63 pain-free, 57 with history of LBP and 54 with current LBP). Implicit biases between back posture and safety related to bending and lifting were assessed with the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Participants completed paper-based (Bending Safety Belief [BSB]) and online questionnaires (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia; Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire). RESULTS: Participants displayed significant implicit bias between images of round-back bending and lifting and words representing "danger" (IATD-SCORE: Pain-free group: 0.56 (IQR=0.31-0.91; 95% CI [0.47, 0.68]); history of LBP group: 0.57 (IQR=0.34-0.84; 95% CI [0.47, 0.67]); current LBP group: 0.56 (IQR=0.24-0.80; 95% CI [0.39, 0.64])). Explicit measures revealed participants hold unhelpful beliefs about the back, perceiving round-back bending and lifting as dangerous (BSBthermometer: Pain-free group: 8 (IQR=7-10; 95% CI [7.5, 8.5]); history of LBP group: 8 (IQR=7-10; 95% CI [7.5, 9.0]); current LBP group: 8.5 (IQR=6.75-10; [7.5, 9.0])). There was no correlation between implicit and explicit measures within the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a middle-income country, people with and without LBP, and those who recovered from LBP have an implicit bias that round-back bending and lifting is dangerous.

Does focus of attention alter craniocervical flexion test motor learning? A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of three different foci of attention (internal, external and mixed) on motor learning using craniocervical flexion test in inexperienced participants. METHODS: Ninety healthy young adults, with no experience in the task, practiced the craniocervical flexion test under three different focus of attention: a) Mixed Focus (internal plus external), b) Internal Focus, and c) External Focus. We assessed immediate, post-training, and retention (one week after the last training session) aspects of motor learning by quantifying (i) the activity of the superficial cervical flexors muscles, (ii) craniocervical range of motion, and (iii) the performance on the craniocervical flexion test. RESULTS: None of the groups showed any significant immediate, post-training, or retention effects on superficial neck flexors activity and craniocervical range of motion progression. At immediate assessment, mixed focus had greater craniocervical flexion performance than external (MD 0.9, 95%CI 0.2 to 1.5), and internal foci (MD 1.4, 95%CI 0.8 to 2.1). At post-training, mixed focus led to better craniocervical performance compared to external (MD 1.6, 95%CI 0.8 to 2.4) and internal foci (MD 2.7, 95%CI 1.9 to 3.5). External focus had better scores on the craniocervical flexion test performance than internal focus (MD 1.1, 95%CI 0.3 to 1.9). Results remained similar at retention, with mixed focus being superior to internal (MD 2.3, 95%CI 1.7 to 3) and external foci (MD 1.5, 95%CI 0.9 to 2.1) on craniocervical flexion test performance. Similarly, the performance on the craniocervical flexion test performance remained similar at retention between external and internal foci (MD 0.9, 95%CI 0.2 to 1.5). CONCLUSION: In inexperienced asymptomatic participants, different foci of attention were not able to change cervical muscle activity and craniocervical range of motion during the craniocervical flexion test. Mixed focus was better than external and internal focus on the craniocervical flexion test. These findings were retained after one week.