ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Public Health
Sec. Occupational Health and Safety
Volume 13 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1655747
This article is part of the Research TopicNavigating Environmental Hazards in the Workplace: Impacts and InterventionsView all 13 articles
Development and evaluation of the Low Back Pain Questionnaire (LBPQ) for Personnel Working on Islands
Provisionally accepted
- 1Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
- 2Beihua University, Jilin, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background:Low back pain (LBP) is a significant musculoskeletal disorder with multifactorial causes, affecting workforce productivity globally. Personnel working on islands face heightened LBP risk due to intensive training (e.g., heavy lifting, prolonged standing) and harsh environmental conditions (high temperature, humidity, solar radiation).Existing LBP questionnaires, such as the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index, lack specificity for island personnel's unique challenges. This study aimed to develop and validate the Low Back Pain Questionnaire (LBPQ) tailored to this population, aligning with the biopsychosocial medical model.The LBPQ development followed a six-step process: conceptual definition, item generation, purification, dimension extraction, and reliability/validity testing. Through literature review, expert discussions, and interviews with 30 personnel working on islands, a 50-item initial scale was refined to 25 items across five dimensions: Pain Severity, Training, Daily Life, Psychological Impact, and Island Specificity. The final scale was administered to 600 personnel working on islands (experimental group) and 600 personnel working on land (control group). Reliability was assessed via Cronbach's α, while validity included factor analysis, convergent/discriminant validity tests, and correlation with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).The LBPQ demonstrated excellent reliability for personnel working on islands (Cronbach's α = 0.978) and good validity, with a KMO value of 0.967 and a cumulative variance contribution rate of 93.322%. Confirmatory factor analysis showed optimal model fit (χ²/df = 1.354, CFI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.024). Convergent and discriminant validity were superior in the island group compared to the control group. Strong correlations were observed with VAS (r = 0.675) and ODI (r = 0.824), confirming alignment with established scales.The LBPQ is a reliable and valid tool for assessing LBP in personnel working on islands, addressing their unique environmental and occupational risks. It enhances clinical understanding of LBP severity and psychosocial impacts, enabling targeted prevention and intervention strategies. Future research should validate its applicability across diverse island environments and further refine its brevity.
Keywords: Low Back Pain, Questionnaire Development, personnel working on islands, Reliability, validity, biopsychosocial model
Received: 03 Jul 2025; Accepted: 29 Jul 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Feng, Tang, Cheng, Zhou and Wei. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Xiaoyi Zhou, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
Xianzhao Wei, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.