Journal Information
Vol. 21. Issue 4.
Pages 274-280 (01 July 2017)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
3255
Vol. 21. Issue 4.
Pages 274-280 (01 July 2017)
Original research
Full text access
Prevalence and factors associated with neck pain: a population-based study
Visits
3255
Caio Vitor Dos Santos Genebraa, Nicoly Machado Maciela, Thiago Paulo Frascareli Bentob, Sandra Fiorelli Almeida Penteado Simeãoc, Alberto De Vittaa,
Corresponding author
albvitta@gmail.com

Corresponding author at: Rua Irmã Arminda 10-50 – Jd. Brasil, 17011-160 Bauru, SP, Brazil.
a Programa de Mestrado em Fisioterapia na Saúde Funcional, Universidade do Sagrado Coração (USC), Bauru, SP, Brazil
b Curso de Fisioterapia, Universidade do Sagrado Coração (USC), Bauru, SP, Brazil
c Programa de Mestrado em Odontologia, Universidade do Sagrado Coração (USC), Bauru, SP, Brazil
Highlights

  • The study population shows high prevalence of neck pain.

  • The factors were widowed, income, educational level, sitting posture and diseases.

  • Prevention should emphasize sociodemographic, behavioral, and ergonomic factors.

This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Tables (5)
Table 1. Distribution of frequencies of sociodemographic characteristics, level of physical activity, and smoking habits of the sample of individuals aged over 20 living in the city of Bauru, according to gender.
Table 2. Prevalence of neck pain by sociodemographic characteristics, physical activity level, reported diseases, and smoking.
Table 3. Prevalence of neck pain by sedentary activities.
Table 4. Prevalence of neck pain by ergonomic or work variables.
Table 5. Poisson regression analysis, final model, for associations of variables studied with neck pain.
Show moreShow less
Abstract
Background

Neck pain is a musculoskeletal condition with high prevalence that may affect the physical, social, and psychological aspects of the individual, contributing to the increase in costs in society and business.

Objective

To determine the prevalence of neck pain and associated factors in a population-based sample of adults aged 20 and more.

Methods

Cross-sectional study based on a population survey. A total number of 600 individuals were interviewed in their homes, and the following data were collected: (1) participant characteristics (demographic, socioeconomic, and work-related aspects) using a pre-coded questionnaire; (2) physical activity level using the IPAQ; and (3) musculoskeletal symptoms using the Nordic questionnaire. Descriptive, bivariate, and Poisson regression analyses were performed.

Results

The prevalence of neck pain was 20.3% (95% CI 17.3–23.7). The adjusted analyses showed that individuals who were widowers or separated (PR=2.26; 1.42–5.88), had a low income (PR=1.32; 1.22–6.27) or low educational level (PR=1.83; 1.02–5.26), worked while sitting and leaning (PR=1.55; 1.08–2.40), and who reported having two or more diseases (PR=1.71; 1.55–6.31) remained associated with neck pain.

Conclusion

This study reveals the high prevalence of neck pain and remarkable association with widowed/separated people who have low income and low educational level, who perform their occupational activities in sitting and leaning positions, and who reported having two or more diseases. Knowledge of these risk factors will contribute to the development of forms of assistance in which neck pain can be prevented and better managed.

Keywords:
Neck pain
Epidemiology
Risk factors
Physical therapy
Full Text
Introduction

Neck pain is one of the major musculoskeletal disorders in the adult population1; its prevalence in the world ranges from 16.7% to 75.1%.2 This condition has a complex etiology, including a number of factors: ergonomic (strenuous physical activity, use of force and vibration, inadequate posture, repetitive movement), individual (age, body mass index, genome, musculoskeletal pain history), behavioral (smoking and level of physical activity), and psychosocial (job satisfaction, stress level, anxiety, and depression).3,4

Some studies show the relationship between neck pain and associated factors. In China, it was observed that individuals who reported neck pain5 were the ones who performed manual activities above shoulder level, utilized vibrating tools, and remained in the sitting or standing position with bent necks. In the United States,6 neck pain was associated with women, married and separated people who suffered from some morbidity (respiratory, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal diseases, among others) and psychological alterations (depression, difficulty falling asleep, and insomnia), whereas high educational level6 and regular physical activities were considered protective factors.7

Neck pain is a major cause of morbidity and disability in everyday life and at work in many countries. It can have an impact on the individual's physical, social, and psychological well-being, contributing to increasing costs to society and businesses. In addition, with the increasing aging population of medium- and low-income countries, the prevalence of neck pain will grow significantly in the coming decades,8 requiring knowledge of the risk factors and forms of preventive and/or curative interventions (for example, global postural re-education, segmental stretching,9 dry needling, and percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation,10 among others). It is also important to highlight that, in Brazil, population-based studies regarding pain have been frequently related to lumbar or general pain,11 while neck pain needs further research.

The present study aimed to verify the prevalence of neck pain in a population-based sample of adults aged 20 and older and to analyze the associations of neck pain with the demographic, socioeconomic and ergonomic aspects that are related to the aforementioned lifestyle and morbidity.

Methods

This cross-sectional design study was conducted in the urban area of Bauru, a city located in the central western region of the State of São Paulo (Brazil) has a population of approximately 337,094 inhabitants – of which 207,021 are aged over 20. The project was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Universidade do Sagrado Coração, Bauru, SP, Brazil (approval no. 957481). The participants signed a consent form, as recommended by Resolution 196 of the National Health Council.

The age and gender groups (called sample domains) were firstly defined with a minimum number of individuals per sample, in order to allow further analysis. Six sample domains were determined: 20–35-year-old men; 20–35-year-old women; 36–59-year-old men; 36–59-year-old women; 60-year-old and older men; and 60-year-old and older women.

The sample size calculation was based on the following premises: an estimated proportion of 50% of the population subgroups, since this is the maximum variability that leads to obtaining conservative sample sizes; a 95% confidence level in the estimation of confidence intervals; a 10% sampling error, indicating that the amplitude between the estimated sample and the population parameter should not exceed this value; and a design effect (deff) equal to 2. Therefore, the sample size for each group was at least 200 individuals (100 male and 100 female), totaling 600 participants.

Sampling was drawn from a two-stage cluster. The primary sampling units (PSUs) were the census tracts, and the secondary sampling units were the residences. The PSUs were drawn by systematic sampling with a probability proportional to their sizes.12 The sampling units were obtained from the National Survey of Household Samples from 2011,13 which produced an address list of private homes for each census tract. A total of 50 urban census tracts were drawn from the 476 identified ones.

The number of households to be drawn from each sampling domain12 was determined, and the ratio between the average number of individuals and the number of households was then calculated. Therefore, it was decided that around 12 households should be visited for every census tract. These households were systematically drawn and all individuals residing in them were considered eligible for the interviews. A new household was randomly selected in case of refusal.

The individuals who were not located after four visits (of which at least one at night and one on the weekend), including those who were traveling, were considered as loss. The individuals who refused to answer the questionnaire by personal choice were considered as refusals.

Individuals who were living in institutions such as nursing homes and prisons and those who were unable to answer the questionnaire were excluded from the study. The elderly underwent the Mini-Mental State Examination at the beginning of the interview, so their cognitive state, as well as the reliability of their answers, could be assessed. Participants who scored less than 27 points14 are considered to have cognitive loss and, therefore, were excluded.

Interviews were conducted by 10 senior physical therapy students. All have undergone theoretical and practical training, which included home approach, interviewing techniques, and issues related to the research tool. A pilot study was performed as part of the training, and the fieldwork was supervised by the researchers involved in the study.

Data was collected from February to June 2012. After the interviews, the questionnaires were coded by the interviewers and revised by the researcher in charge. The supervisors also conducted quality control, which consisted of administering reduced questionnaires to 10% of the respondents.

The variable “neck pain” was observed using the Nordic questionnaire, which was validated and adapted to the Brazilian culture.15 Neck pain was defined as pain, ache, or discomfort in the area between the occiput and the third thoracic vertebra and between the medial borders of the scapulae.16 In the interview, individuals were asked the following question: “Did you have any pain or discomfort in the neck in the past year?” In addition to the verbal questionnaire, an image of the spinal regions in different colors was also presented, so the interviewees could better specify the neck region that was painful.15

The demographic characteristics (age, gender, and race) and socioeconomic characteristics (income and marital status) were evaluated through a pre-coded questionnaire with closed questions. Gender was categorized as female and male; age was categorized into three age groups; marital status was categorized into single, married, and widowed/separated; and education was defined in years (0–4 years, 5–8, 9–11, and 12 or more). Race (white, black, mulatto) was noted by the interviewers and income was based on the minimum wage (MW) (low: up to 3 times the MW; middle: from 4 to 9 times the MW; and high: 10 or more times the MW).17

The questions regarding the sedentary activities (time on TV and on the computer and/or playing video games) were “Do you watch TV in a normal week?” (yes; no); “How many times do you watch TV in a normal week?” (up to two times; three to four times; five times or more in the week); “How many hours do you watch TV on a normal day?” (up to 2h; over 3h per day); “How often do you use the computer or play video games in a normal week?” (up to two times; three to four times; five times or more per week); “For how many hours do you use a computer or play video games on a normal day?” (up to 2h; over 3h per day).18

The ergonomic variables were characterized by the perception of the interviewees, who identified one of four options (never, rarely, usually, or always) that best characterized the frequency of exposure they had at work or at the time of the interview. The measured variables included physical stress, vibration, repeatability, and bad posture, characterized by how often the interviewee worked in the sitting or standing positions. In order to define the association between neck pain and ergonomic variables, the frequencies obtained in the categories “never” and “rarely” were added and categorized into a single group; the same was done to the categories “generally” and “always”.17

The individuals who reported smoking daily (at least one cigarette per day) or occasionally (less than one cigarette per day) were considered smokers. The individuals who had stopped smoking at least 6 months before the interview were considered former smokers.19

Data on morbidity were collected during the interview, in which the subjects answered the question: “among the alternatives below (hypertension; osteoporosis; diabetes; osteoarthritis; skin, respiratory, gastrointestinal, pancreatic, or liver diseases; genital and urinary system diseases), choose the one/ones that matches/match the diagnosis you received from a doctor in the last 12 months.20

The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)21 has been validated for the Brazilian population and was utilized to check the physical activity level of the subjects. A threshold of 150min of physical activity per week was established to classify the individuals as active (150min per week or more) or insufficiently active (below 150min per week).22

The obtained data was then inserted into a database and the analyses were stratified by gender, using the SPSS version 10.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Absolute and relative frequency distributions were performed for categorical variables, as well as the calculation of prevalence ratios (PR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Poisson regression was utilized to analyze the variables associated with neck pain, respecting a hierarchical model of relationships among the variables. This technique is justified since the outcome could present high prevalence (20% or more), which would result in an overestimated effect size and odds ratio (OR) obtained using logistic regression analysis. The PR were calculated, as well as their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

A total of 641 eligible individuals were found in the selected households, but only 600 were interviewed. The main reasons for loss (n=41) were “absent residents” and “scheduled with the interviewer but did not show up”. The refusals were “unresponsive in the interview” and “the interview is too long/it takes too much time to answer”.

Table 1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics, the levels of physical activity, and smoking habits of the sample of individuals older than 20 years, living in the city of Bauru in the central western region of São Paulo state (Brazil). It can be observed that the highest percentage of individuals of both genders had between 9 and 11 years of schooling, were white, married, non-smokers, and had low income and sedentary habits.

Table 1.

Distribution of frequencies of sociodemographic characteristics, level of physical activity, and smoking habits of the sample of individuals aged over 20 living in the city of Bauru, according to gender.

Factors  Gender
  MaleFemale
  N  N 
School years
12 or higher education  57  19.0  48  16.0 
9–11  126  42.0  118  39.3 
5–8  65  21.7  64  21.3 
0–4  52  17.3  70  23.3 
Race
White  237  79.0  243  81.0 
Black  17  5.7  21  7.0 
Mulatto  46  15.3  36  12.0 
Marital status
Married  180  60.0  165  55.0 
Single  85  28.3  65  21.7 
Widower/separated  35  11.7  70  23.3 
Income
High  39  13.0  32  10.7 
Middle  72  24.0  68  22. 
Low  189  63.0  200  66.7 
Smoking
Not smoker  160  53.3  203  67.7 
Former smoker  74  24.7  54  18.0 
Smoker  66  22.0  43  14.3 
Physical activity level
Active  99  33.0  111  37.0 
Sedentary  201  67.0  189  63.0 

Of the total number of interviewees, 94.3% watch TV and 95.4% of them watch it more than three times a week, while 46.5% watch TV for three or more hours a day. The data show that 47.7% of the interviewees use computers and play video games, and 74.5% of them use these devices for more than five hours a day, whilst 55.6% use them for up to two hours a day.

It was possible to observe that 62.8% of the subjects had always worked in the sitting position; 76.3% had worked in the standing position; 48.5% had worked in the standing position and leaning their bodies; 26.0% had worked in the sitting position and leaning their bodies; 2.8% had worked in the kneeling position; and 8.2% had worked in the sitting position and lifting loads. Approximately 60.0% of the subjects had always performed repetitive movements; 33.3% had always carried loads, and 15.8% were always exposed to vibration.

20.3% of the individuals (CI 17.3–23.7) had reported feeling neck pain at least once in the 12 months preceding the interview. From these, 18.0% (CI 14.0–22.7) were men and 22.7% (CI 18.2–27.7) were women.

Table 2 shows that the individuals who were separated and widowed, mulatto, had low income, and reported having had two, three or more diseases were associated with the presence of neck pain.

Table 2.

Prevalence of neck pain by sociodemographic characteristics, physical activity level, reported diseases, and smoking.

Variables  Neck pain
  Prevalence
  Total  N  PR 95% CI 
Gender
Male  300  54  18.0  1.00 
Female  300  68  22.7  1.26 (0.91–1.73) 
Age-groups
20–35 years  200  37  18.5  1.00 
36–59 years  200  38  19.0  1.03 (0.68–1.54) 
60 or more  200  47  23.5  1.27 (0.87–1.86) 
School years
12 or higher education  105  24  22.9  1.00 
9–11  244  39  16.0  0.70 (0.44–1.10) 
5–8  129  28  21.7  0.95 (0.59–1.54) 
0–4  122  31  25.4  1.11 (0.70–1.77) 
Race
White  480  91  18.9  1.00 
Black  38  21.1  1.11 (0.58–2.11) 
Mulatto  82  23  28.0  1.48 (1.00–2.19) 
Marital status
Married  345  64  18.5  1.00 
Single  150  22  14.7  0.79 (0.51–1.23) 
Widowed/separated  105  36  34.3  1.85(1.31–2.61) 
Income
High  71  9.9  1.00 
Middle  140  23  16.4  1.67 (0.75–3.70) 
Low  389  92  23.6  2.40 (1.16–4.96) 
Smoking
Not smoker  363  67  18.4  1.00 
Former smoker  128  27  21.1  1.14 (0.77–1.70) 
Smoker  109  28  25.7  1.39 (0.95–2.05) 
Related diseases
None  178  19  10.6  1.00 
One  138  20  14.5  1.35 (0.75–2.43) 
Two  107  22  20.6  1.92 (1.09–3.37) 
Three or more  178  61  34.3  3.19 (1.99–5.11) 
Physical activity level
Active  210  47  22.4  1.00 
Sedentary  390  75  19.2  0.86 (0.62–1.19) 

PR, prevalence ratios; CI, confidence intervals.

From Table 3, it is possible to notice that the variables related to sedentary activities were not associated with neck pain.

Table 3.

Prevalence of neck pain by sedentary activities.

Variables  Neck pain
  Prevalence
  Total  N  PR 95% CI 
Watch TV
No  44  15.9  1.00 
Yes  566  115  20.3  0.99 (0.50–1.95) 
Number of times TV/week
Up to 2  26  11.5  1.00 
3–4  67  14  20.9  1.81 (0.57–5-79) 
5 or more  473  98  20.7  1.80 (0.61–5.28) 
Amount of hours TV/day
Up to 2  303  65  21.4  1.00 
Over 3  263  50  19.0  0.89 (0.64–1.23) 
Use of computer/videogame
No  314  75  23.9  1.00 
Yes  286  47  16.4  0.69 (0.50–0.95) 
Number of times computer/videogame/week
Up to 2  37  10  27.0  1.00 
3–4  36  16.7  0.62 (0.25–1.52) 
5 or more  213  31  14.6  0.54 (0.29–1.00 
Amount of hours computer/videogame/day
Up to 2  159  24  15.0  1.00 
Over 3  127  23  18.1  1.20 (0.71–2.02) 

PR, prevalence ratios; CI, confidence intervals.

Neck pain was significantly associated with repetitive movement, activities that require lifting and moving loads, and being in the sitting and leaning positions (Table 4).

Table 4.

Prevalence of neck pain by ergonomic or work variables.

Variables  Neck pain
  Prevalence
  Total  N  PR 95% CI 
Repetitive movements
Never/Rarely  240  39  16.2  1.00 
Always/Usually  360  83  23.1  1.42 (1.01–2.00) 
Vibration/Shake
Never/Rarely  505  98  19.4  1.00 
Always/Usually  95  24  25.3  1.30 (0.88–1.92) 
Carrying and transporting loads
Never/Rarely  400  72  18.0  1.00 
Always/Usually  200  50  25.0  1.39 (1.01–1.91) 
Sitting position
Never/Rarely  223  43  19.3  1.00 
Always/Usually  377  79  21.0  1.09 (0.78–1.52) 
Sitting and lifting loads
Never/Rarely  551  110  19.9  1.00 
Always/Usually  49  12  24.5  1.23 (0.73–2.06) 
Sitting and leaning
Never/Rarely  444  82  18.4  1.00 
Always/Usually  156  40  25.6  1.39 (1.00–1.93) 
Standing position
Never/Rarely  142  26  18.3  1.00 
Always/Usually  458  96  21.0  1.14 (0.77 -1.69) 
Standing and leaning
Never/Rarely  309  56  18.1  1.00 
Always/Usually  291  66  22.7  1.25 (0.91–1.72) 

PR, prevalence ratios; CI, confidence intervals.

In the Poisson regression, the associations with neck pain remained for the people who were widowed and separated, had low income, had studied for 1–4 years or 5–8 years, often or always performed daily activities while sitting or leaning, and reported having had two or more diseases (Table 5).

Table 5.

Poisson regression analysis, final model, for associations of variables studied with neck pain.

Neck pain
Factor  p-Value  PR adjusted/95%CI* 
Marital status
Married  –  1.00 
Single  0.466  1.17 (0.70–2.22) 
Widowed/separated  0.029  2.26 (1.42–5.88) 
Income
High  –  1.00 
Middle  0.129  1.55 (0.73–4.44) 
Low  0.003  1.32 (1.22–6.27) 
School years
12 or higher education  –  1.00 
9–11  0.055  1.46 (1.16–4.00) 
5–8  0.040  1.77 (1.07–4.76) 
0–4  0.014  1.83 (1.02–5.26) 
Sitting and leaning
Never/Rarely  –  1.00 
Always/Usually  0.021  1.55 (1.08–2.40) 
Related diseases
None  –  1.00 
One  0.055  1.29 (0.72–2.80) 
Two or more  0.001  1.71 (1.55–6.31) 
*

Adjusted by gender and age group; PR, prevalence ratios; CI, confidence intervals.

Discussion

In this study, the prevalence of neck pain was 20.3%, which is similar to what was reported in studies from southern Brazil (24.0%),11 Spain (19.5%),23 and Greece (20.4%)24; these numbers are lower than those found in China (48.7%)5 and Sri Lanka (56.9%),25 and higher than those found in the United States (4.4%).6 These variations in prevalence rates may be related to socioeconomic characteristics (income and education), the perception of human health, the quality of health systems and, especially, the methodological variations of the studies8 (prevalence period, setting the episode of neck pain, and the anatomical location).

Regarding the association of the outcome with the independent variables investigated in this study, marital status, income, years of schooling, sitting and leaning, and related diseases remained associated with neck pain in the final model. Being separated/widowed (2.26; 95% CI 1.42–5.88) is associated with neck pain; this data is similar to what was found in studies from Greece24 and Sweden.26 In Korea27 and in the autonomous community of Madrid,28 differences in marital status were not observed. The literature states that the influence of marital status is not completely clear. Marital status is probably not a risk factor for pain, but a mark for risk, and it may be related to more ergonomic exposures at home/work or characteristics of behavioral risk.29 Another plausible explanation is the increased social support for those who live with a partner.29

Working in sitting and leaning body positions is the ergonomic exposure that remains associated with the outcome, which is in accordance with studies from China,5 Sweden,30 and Sri Lanka.25 There are no noticeable differences in studies from Thailand31 and Estonia.32 The sitting posture in occupational activities – associated with poor postural habits, ergonomically unsuitable environments, and psychosocial factors – increases the activity of the neck extensor muscles and the sternocleidomastoid by about 35%. There is also an increase in internal pressure on the intervertebral disc core, an increase in compressive load on neck ligaments, joint capsules, and other structures of the cervical spine. This contributes to the development of inflammations in musculoskeletal structures associated with painful symptoms, as well as neck pain.33

Neck pain was associated with individuals who reported having two or more diseases. This data is similar to what was found in studies from the community of Madrid34 and the countries of Denmark35 and Spain.23 The presence of pathological disorders makes the individual more susceptible to pain. Thus, the predisposing individual risks for pain are the previous pathological experiences and the similar symptoms in other parts of the body.36 Malchaire et al.3 state that this interpretation is difficult because most studies are cross-sectional; therefore, the association of symptoms with the diseases can be interpreted as a cause or as an effect.3

Low levels of income and education are associated with the outcome, which corroborates the results found in Germany37 and in the Spanish community of Catalunya38 and contradicts those found in countries such as Spain,23 Korea,27 and Sweden.30 There are some hypotheses that could explain the association between events related to health and low education: socioeconomic groups not having access to specialized interventions; low knowledge interfering with the understanding of risk factors, the adoption of self-care actions, and the adherence to interventions. Individuals with low education usually work in occupations with high risk of musculoskeletal injury.39 The other variables did not show statistically significant results in the final model; however, the literature describes these variables as risk factors for the presence of neck pain.

The main limitation of the study is the fact that data regarding the frequency, severity, intensity, length of neck pain, and how the outcome affected and/or limited the subjects’ regular activities or how it changed their daily routine, have not been collected. The strength of the study is that the results are consistent with the literature and the number of interviewees.

Neck pain is a common condition that causes substantial disability. Considering that the available data from national surveys on the outcome are scarce in Brazil, this study will contribute as a reference for other epidemiological investigations and will cooperate with the national assessment of prevalence and risk factors, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Further studies should be conducted on the predictors and the clinical outcome of neck pain in different configurations.

This study reveals a high prevalence of neck pain and remarkable associations with individuals who are widowed/separated people, perform occupational activities while sitting and leaning, have low levels of education and income, and report two or more diseases. Knowledge of these risk factors will contribute to the development of assistance programs for the prevention and management of neck pain.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
[1]
E. Vingard.
Chapter 5.6: major public health problems – musculoskeletal disorders.
Scand J Public Health Suppl, 67 (2006), pp. 104-112
[2]
R. Fejer, K.O. Kyvik, J. Hartvigsen.
The prevalence of neck pain in the world population: a systematic critical review of the literature.
Eur Spine J, 15 (2006), pp. 834-848
[3]
J.B. Malchaire, Y. Roquelaure, N. Cock, A. Piette, S. Vergracht, H. Chiron.
Musculoskeletal complaints, functional capacity, personality and psychosocial factors.
Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 74 (2001), pp. 549-557
[4]
M.A. Cimmino, C. Ferrone, M. Cutolo.
Epidemiology of chronic musculoskeletal pain.
Best Practice Res Clin Rheumatol, 25 (2011), pp. 173-183
[5]
P. Yue, F. Liu, L. Li.
Neck/shoulder pain and low back pain among school teachers in China, prevalence and risk factors.
BMC Public Health, 12 (2012), pp. 789
[6]
T.W. Strine, J.M. Hootman.
US national prevalence and correlates of low back and neck pain among adults.
Arthritis Rheum, 57 (2007), pp. 656-665
[7]
J.M. Hush, Z. Michaleff, C.G. Maher, K. Refshauge.
Individual, physical and psychological risk factors for neck pain in Australian office workers: a 1-year longitudinal study.
Eur Spine J, 18 (2009), pp. 1532-1540
[8]
D. Hoy, L. March, A. Woolf, et al.
The global burden of neck pain: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study.
Ann Rheum Dis, 73 (2014), pp. 1309-1315
[9]
G.E. Ferreira, R.G. Barreto, C.C. Robinson, R.D.M. Plentz, M.F. Silva.
Global Postural Reeducation for patients with musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Braz J Phys Ther, 20 (2016), pp. 194-220
[10]
J.V. León-Hernández, A. Martín-Pintado-Zugasti, L.G. Frutos, I.M. Alguacil-Diego, A.L. Llave-Rincón, J. Fernandez-Carnero.
Immediate and short-term effects of the combination of dry needling and percutaneous TENS on post-needling soreness in patients with chronic myofascial neck pain.
[11]
G.D. Ferreira, M.C. Silva, A.J. Rombaldi, E.D. Wrege, F.V. Siqueira, P.C. Hallal.
Prevalência de dor nas costas e fatores associados em adultos do Sul do Brasil: estudo de base populacional.
Rev Bras Fisioter, 15 (2011), pp. 31-36
[12]
Alves MCGP. Técnicas de replicação em análise de dados de inquéritos domiciliares. (Tese de Doutorado). São Paulo: Faculdade de Saúde Pública da USP; 2002.
[13]
IBGE.
Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios.
Pesq Nac Amost Domic, 31 (2011), pp. 1-135
[14]
M.F. Folstein, S.E. Folstein, P.R. McHugh.
Mini-mental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician.
J Psychiatric Res, 12 (1975), pp. 189-198
[15]
E.N.C. Barros, N.M.C. Alexandre.
Cross-cultural adaptation of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire.
Int Nurs Rev, 50 (2003), pp. 101-108
[16]
R. Fejer, J. Hartvigsen.
Neck pain and disability due to neck pain: what is the relation?.
Eur Spine J, 17 (2008), pp. 80-88
[17]
R. Palma, M.H.S. Conti, N.M. Quintino, M.A.N. Gatti, S.F.A.P. Simeão, A. Vitta.
Functional capacity and its associated factors in the elderly with low back pain.
Acta Ortop Bras, 22 (2014), pp. 295-299
[18]
J.A.A. Fernandes, C.V.S. Genebra, N.M. Maciel, A. Fiorelli, M.H.S. Conti, A. De Vitta.
Low back pain in schoolchildren: a cross-sectional study in a western city of São Paulo State, Brazil.
Acta Ortop Bras, 23 (2015), pp. 235-238
[19]
World Health Organization. Guidelines for controlling and monitoring the tobacco epidemic. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
[20]
A.G. Campolina, R.M. Ciconelli.
Qualidade de Vida medidas de utilidade: parâmetros clínicos para as tomadas de decisão em saúde.
Rev Panam Salud Publ, 2 (2006), pp. 128-136
[21]
S.M.M. Matsudo, T.L. Araújo, V.K.R. Matsudo, D.R. Andrade, L.C. Oliveira, G.F. Braggion.
Questionário Internacional de Atividade Física (IPAQ): estudo de validade e reprodutibilidade no Brasil.
Rev Bras Ativ Fís e Saúde, 6 (2001), pp. 5-18
[22]
HHS - Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Report, 2008. Washington, DC: U.S; 2008.
[23]
C. Fernández-de-las-Peñas, V. Hernández-Barrera, C. Alonso-Blanco, et al.
Prevalence of neck and low back pain in community-dwelling adults in Spain: a population-based national study.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 36 (2011), pp. E213-E219
[24]
G. Stranjalis, T. Kalamatianos, L.C. Stavrinou, K. Tsamandouraki, Y. Alamanos.
Neck pain in a sample of Greek urban population (fifteen to sixty-five years): analysis according to personal and socioeconomic characteristics.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 36 (2011), pp. E1098-E1104
[25]
P. Ranasinghe, Y.S. Perera, D.A. Lamabadusuriya, et al.
Work related complaints of neck, shoulder and arm among computer office workers: a cross-sectional evaluation of prevalence and risk factors in a developing country.
Environ Health, 10 (2011), pp. 70
[26]
P. Ostergren, S. Bertil, B.S. Hanson, et al.
Incidence of shoulder and neck pain in a working population: effect modification between mechanical and psychosocial exposures at work? Results from a one year follow up of the Malmo¿ shoulder and neck study cohort.
J Epidemiol Commun Health, 59 (2005), pp. 721-728
[27]
K.M. Son, N.H. Cho, S.H. Lim, H.A. Kim.
Prevalence and risk factor of neck pain in elderly Korean community residents.
J Korean Med Sci, 28 (2013), pp. 680-686
[28]
S. Jiménez-Sáncheza, C. Fernández-de-las-Penas, P. Carrasco-Garrido, et al.
Prevalence of chronic head, neck and low back pain and associated factors in women residing in the Autonomous Region of Madrid (Spain).
Gac Sanit, 26 (2012), pp. 534-540
[29]
I.C.G.B. Almeida, K.N. Sá, M.B. Silva, M.A. Matos, I. Lessa.
Prevalência de dor lombar crônica na população da cidade de Salvador.
Rev Bras Ortop, 43 (2008), pp. 96-102
[30]
S.A.C. Holmberg, A.G. Thelin.
Predictor s of sick leave owing to neck or low back pain: a 12-year longitudinal cohort study in a rural male population.
Ann Agric Environ Med, 17 (2010), pp. 251-257
[31]
K. Oha, L. Animägi, M. Pääsuke, D. Coggon, E. Merisalu.
Individual and work-related risk factors for musculoskeletal pain: a cross-sectional study among Estonian computer users.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 15 (2014), pp. 181
[32]
A. Paksaichol, P. Janwantanakul, N. Purepong, P. Pensri, A.J. van der Beek.
Office workers’ risk factors for the development of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies.
Occup Environ Med, 69 (2012), pp. 610-618
[33]
A. De Vitta, D.M. Trize, A. Fiorelli, L. Carnaz, M.H.S. De Conti, S.F.A.P. Simeão.
Neck/shoulders pain and its relation to the use of tv/computer/videogame and physical activity in school students from Bauru.
Fisioter Mov, 27 (2014), pp. 111-118
[34]
D. Palacios-Ceña, C. Alonso-Blanco, V. Hernández-Barrera, P. Carrasco-Garrido, R. Jiménez-García, C. Fernández-de-las-Peñas.
Prevalence of neck and low back pain in community-dwelling adults in Spain: an updated population-based national study (2009/10-2011/12).
Eur Spine J, 24 (2015), pp. 482-492
[35]
J. Harker, K.J. Reid, G.E. Bekkering, et al.
Epidemiology of chronic pain in Denmark and Sweden.
Pain Res Treat, 2012 (2012), pp. 1-30
[36]
A.C.C. Maciel, M.B. Fernandes, L.S. Medeiros.
Prevalência e fatores associados à sintomatologia dolorosa entre profissionais da indústria têxtil.
Rev Bras Epidemiol, 9 (2006), pp. 94-102
[37]
C.O. Schmidt, J. Moock, R.A. Fahland, Y.Y. Feng, T. Kohlmann.
Back pain and social status among the working population: what is the association? Results from a German general population survey.
Schmerz, 25 (2011), pp. 306-314
[38]
M.J. Pueyo, X. Surís, M. Larrosa, et al.
Importancia de los problemas reumáticos en la población de Cataluna: prevalencia y repercusión en la salud percibida, restricción de actividades y utilización de recursos sanitarios.
[39]
F.F.L. Rodrigues, M.A. Santos, C.R.S. Teixeira, J.T. Gonela, M.L. Zanetti.
Relação entre conhecimento, atitude, escolaridade e tempo de doença em indivíduos com diabetesmellitus.
Acta Paul Enferm, 25 (2012), pp. 284-290
Copyright © 2017. Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia
Idiomas
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
Article options
Tools
en pt
Cookies policy Política de cookies
To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here. Utilizamos cookies próprios e de terceiros para melhorar nossos serviços e mostrar publicidade relacionada às suas preferências, analisando seus hábitos de navegação. Se continuar a navegar, consideramos que aceita o seu uso. Você pode alterar a configuração ou obter mais informações aqui.