Kinesiophobia and physical activity: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Miriam Goubran, Ata Farajzadeh, Ian M. Lahart, Martin Bilodeau, Matthieu P. Boisgontier
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.17.23294240

ABSTRACT

Objective Physical activity contributes to the primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention of multiple diseases. However, in some patients, an excessive, irrational, and debilitating fear of movement (i.e., kinesiophobia) is thought to induce avoidance behaviors, contributing to decreased engagement in physical activity. The aim of this study was to examine whether kinesiophobia is negatively associated with physical activity in several health conditions and what factors may influence this relationship.

Methods Five databases were searched for studies including both a measure of kinesiophobia and physical activity. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data from each study. Pearson product-moment correlations were pooled from eligible studies using the generic inverse pooling and random effects method to examine the relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity.

Results Seventy-four studies were included in the systematic review and 63 studies (83 estimates, 12,278 participants) in the main meta-analysis. Results showed a small-to-moderate negative correlation between kinesiophobia and physical activity (r = −0.19; 95% confidence interval: −0.26 to −0.13; I2 = 85.5%; p < 0.0001). Funnel plot analysis showed evidence of publication bias, but p-curve analysis suggested that our results could not be caused by selective reporting. A subgroup meta-analysis showed that the correlation was statistically significant in patients with cardiac, rheumatologic, neurologic, or pulmonary conditions, but not in patients with chronic or acute pain.

Conclusion Our results suggest that higher levels of kinesiophobia are associated with lower levels of physical activity in several health conditions that are not necessarily painful.

Impact Kinesiophobia should be dissociated from pain and considered in relation to specific health conditions when implementing exercise therapy. Kinesiophobia may have prognostic implications in patients for whom physical activity contributes to prevent recurrence or worsening of their condition.

INTRODUCTION

Seven decades ago, the seminal work of Morris et al. (1953)1 showed that conductors on London double-decker buses, who were responsible for checking tickets, assisting passengers with luggage, and supervising the loading and unloading of passengers, had a lower incidence and less severe coronary heart disease than bus drivers. Since then, the scientific literature demonstrating the health benefits of physical activity has grown exponentially and expanded to include multiple health conditions2. These benefits include reduced risk of disability, disease, and mortality2,3. Specifically, higher levels of physical activity have been shown to contribute to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease4, obesity5, depression6, hypertension7, cancer8, and dementia9. Yet, one in four adults worldwide does not meet the recommendations for physical activity10. Physical activity also plays an important role in secondary and tertiary prevention by reducing the impact, slowing the progression, and preventing the recurrence of multiple health conditions, including cardiovascular disease11,12, osteoarthritis13, stroke14,15, and cancer16.

Several factors may explain physical inactivity17, including environmental, interpersonal, and intrapersonal factors18. Environmental factors include lack of access, weather conditions, and safety concerns19. Interpersonal factors include family responsibilities, lack of support, and lack of a gym partner20. Intrapersonal factors include gender21, age22, cognitive function23,24, and socioeconomic circumstances25. Another intrapersonal factor of interest is kinesiophobia, which can be defined as an excessive, irrational, and debilitating fear of movement and activity resulting from a sense of vulnerability to pain, injury, or a medical condition26. Kinesiophobia is typically measured using self-administered questionnaires, such as the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK)27,28, which assesses an individual’s belief that physical activity can lead to injury or pain and that the severity of their medical condition is underestimated. While kinesiophobia is often observed in the context of pain or a clinical condition, its presence in otherwise healthy adults is also possible29 due to the irrational nature of this phobic condition. The irrational fear that characterizes kinesiophobia is likely to influence the desires and impulses for movement and rest30, as well as affective determinants of physical activity in general31.

The relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity can be explained by theories suggesting that the perception of a cue related to physical activity automatically activates the concept of physical activity as well as the unpleasant (or pleasant) affective memories associated with this concept32–35. This activation results in an impulse that favors the tendency to avoid (or approach) physical activity36. Thus, negative affective associations are likely to hinder physical activity. Accordingly, an aversive fear of pain, injury, or aggravation of a medical condition that has been associated with the concept of movement may result in the development of automatic avoidance behaviors that contribute to the maintenance and exacerbation of this fear, and ultimately lead to a phobic state (i.e., kinesiophobia) that diminishes the ability to engage in regular physical activity.

Previous systematic syntheses of the literature on this topic include a meta-analysis37 and two systematic reviews38,39. The main results of these reviews suggest that exercise interventions may reduce kinesiophobia in individuals with back pain. While back pain is one condition that may contribute to kinesiophobia, it is not the only one. The relationship between physical activity and kinesiophobia should be investigated in other conditions such as cardiac, neurological, and rheumatologic conditions.

The main objective of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the direct relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity. We hypothesized that levels of kinesiophobia would be negatively associated with levels of physical activity. In addition, we examined the moderating effect of health status, physical activity measurement instruments (i.e., accelerometers, pedometers, questionnaires), physical activity outcomes (e.g., total physical activity, moderate or vigorous physical activity, steps per day), and kinesiophobia measurement instruments. Finally, because kinesiophobia and physical activity can vary with age, sex, and pain40,41, we explored the influence of these factors on the association between kinesiophobia and physical activity.

METHODS

Search Strategy

This review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines42. Potential studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE (via PubMed), PsychInfo, CINAHL, EMBASE, and SPORTDiscus databases. In October 2023, two reviewers (MG and AF) searched for all available records using the following combination of keywords in the title or abstract of the article: (“kinesiophobia” OR “fear avoidance” OR “fear of movement” OR “movement phobia” OR “movement fear”) AND (“physical activity” OR “exercise” OR “walking”). In PsychInfo the limits “clinical trial”, “quantitative study”, “peer-reviewed journal”, “English”, and “human” were used. In PubMed the limits “clinical trial”, “observational study”, “RCT”, “English” were used. In SPORTDiscus the limits “peer-reviewed”, “English”, “academic journal”, and “article” were used. In CINAHL the limits “peer-reviewed”, “English”, “research article”, “journal article”, and “humans” were used. To reduce literature bias43,44, this systematic review was pre-registered in PROSPERO45.

Eligibility Criteria and Study Selection

Inclusion Criteria

To be included in this systematic review, articles had to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, be written in English, report original data collected from human participants, include at least one self-reported measure of kinesiophobia and one measure of physical activity, and formally test the association between these two variables, be it a univariate or multivariate test. The physical activity measure could be derived from a self-reported measure of the level of physical activity or from a device (e.g., accelerometer, pedometer) worn while participants are engaged in their normal daily activities.

Exclusion Criteria

Studies were excluded if they were published as a book chapter, study protocol, conference abstract, or were based on laboratory-based measures of physical fitness (e.g., maximal muscle force, Embedded Image max) and not on a measure of physical activity.

Study Selection

Article screening was performed in Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia; www.covidence.org), a web-based collaborative software platform that streamlines the production of systematic reviews. After removing duplicates, titles and abstracts were independently reviewed by two reviewers (MG, AF) according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria using a systematic 5-step process. If there was any doubt at any step, the full text was further reviewed. Step 1: Articles not written in English were excluded. Step 2: Articles that did not report original empirical data were excluded (e.g., reviews, meta-analyses, commentaries, technical reports, case studies). Step 3: Articles that did not involve human participants were excluded. Step 4: Articles that did not assess both kinesiophobia and physical activity were excluded. Step 5: Articles that did not formally test the association between kinesiophobia and physical activity were excluded. In addition, we performed reference screening and forward citation tracking on the articles remaining after step 5. Any disagreements between the two reviewers were resolved by consensus among three reviewers (MG, AF, MPB).

Data Extraction

Data extracted from selected articles included first author’s name, article title, publication year, digital object identifier (DOI), number of participants, number of men and women, age range, mean age, mean weight, mean height, mean body mass index, health status, mean pain intensity, type of kinesiophobia measure, level of kinesiophobia, type of physical activity measure, type of physical activity outcome, level of physical activity (continuous or categorical), as well as statistical estimates and significance of the association between kinesiophobia and physical activity.

Methodological Quality and Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk of bias of the studies included in the systematic review was estimated using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies46, the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-Randomized Designs (TREND) reporting checklist47, and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting checklist for randomized trials48. All scores were normalized to a 0-10 scale to make them comparable across assessment instruments (Table 1).

View this table:
Table 1. Sample characteristics of studies included in the systematic review.

Meta-Analysis

All analyses were performed in R Studio integrated development environment (IDE) (2023.06.1+524, “Mountain Hydrangea” release) for R software environment49 using the {meta}50 and {metafor}51,52 R packages53.

Main Meta-Analysis

We pooled Pearson product-moment correlations from eligible studies to examine the relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity. Correlations were pooled using the generic inverse pooling method via the ‘metacor’ function in the {meta} R package50. This function automatically performs a necessary Fisher’s z-transformation on the original, untransformed correlations prior to pooling. The ‘metacor’ function also reconverts the pooled association back to its original form for ease of interpretation. Correlation estimates were nested within studies using the ‘cluster’ argument to account for the dependencies between these estimates, resulting in a three-level meta-analysis (level 1: participants, level 2: correlation estimates, level 3: studies). The distribution of variance across levels was assessed using the multilevel version of I2 54. The performance of the 2-level and 3-level meta-analyses was assessed and compared using the {metafor} R package51,52. We anticipated considerable between-study heterogeneity, and therefore used a random-effects model to pool correlations. The restricted maximum likelihood (RML) estimator55 was used to calculate the heterogeneity variance Tau2. In addition to Tau2, to quantify between-study heterogeneity, we report the I2 statistic, which provides the percentage of variability in the correlations that is not caused by sampling error56. The I2 statistic was interpreted as follows: 0-40%, may not be important; 30-60%, may represent moderate heterogeneity; 50-90%, may represent substantial heterogeneity; and 75-100%, may represent considerable heterogeneity. To reduce the risk of false positives, we used a Knapp-Hartung adjustment57 to calculate the confidence interval around the pooled association. We also report the prediction interval, which provides a range within which we can expect the associations of future studies to fall based on the current evidence. The pooled correlation was interpreted using Cohen’s conventions58: r ≈ −0.10, small negative correlation; r ≈ −0.30, moderate negative correlation; r ≈ −0.50, large negative correlation.

Publication Bias Assessment

Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot, which is a scatter plot of the studies’ effect size expressed as the Fisher’s z transformed correlation on the x-axis against a measure of their standard error (which is indicative of precision of the study’s effect size) on the y-axis. When there is no publication bias, the data points in a funnel plot should form a roughly symmetrical, upside-down funnel. Studies in the top part of the plot, which have lower standard errors, are expected to lie closely together, and not far away from the pooled effect size. In the lower part of the plot, studies have higher standard errors, the funnel “opens up”, and effect sizes are expected to scatter more heavily to the left and right of the pooled effect. Egger’s regression59 can be used to formally test funnel plot’s asymmetry. However, since there is no direct function to conduct Egger’s test for 3-level models, we calculated it by using the standard errors of the effect size estimates as a predictor in the meta-regression60.

P-curve analysis61 was conducted to assess whether the distribution of the statistically significant results was consistent with what would be expected if only true effects were present. When the null hypothesis is true (i.e., there is no true effect), p-values are assumed to follow a uniform distribution: highly significant effects (e.g., p = 0.01) are as likely as barely significant effects (e.g., p = 0.049). However, when the null hypothesis is false (i.e., there is a true effect in our data), p-values are assumed to follow a right-skewed distribution: highly significant effects are more likely than barely significant effects. A left-skewed distribution would suggest that some studies used statistical tests to find significant results in ways that may not be reproducible or generalizable (i.e., p-hacking).

Secondary Meta-Analysis

A secondary meta-analysis was conducted using the same approach, but based on Spearman’s rho values, to further test the relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity.

Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions

Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the differences in correlations between studies including participants with different health conditions and using different types of physical activity measures (i.e., device-based versus self-reported), physical activity measurement instruments (i.e., type of questionnaires, type of devices), physical activity outcomes, and kinesiophobia measures. Exploratory meta-regressions were conducted to examine if the average age of participants, the proportion of women, and pain in a study predicted the reported correlation between kinesiophobia and physical activity. Pain was normalized to a 0-100 scale to make the data comparable across pain scales. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine whether the quality of the studies affected the results.

RESULTS

Literature Search

The primary search identified 3,015 potentially relevant articles from the five databases (Figure 1), including 912 duplicates. Of the 2,103 articles screened, disagreement occurred in 210 cases (10%), all of which were resolved by consensus. All articles remained after step 1 as they were all written in English. 1,133 articles were excluded in step 2 because they were irrelevant (n = 710) or did not report original data (n = 423). No articles were excluded in step 3 because they all involved human participants. Eight hundred and fifty-two articles were excluded in step 4 because they did not assess kinesiophobia (n = 117) or physical activity (n = 735). Seventy-seven articles were initially excluded at step 5 because they did not formally test the correlation between kinesiophobia and physical activity or did not report the estimate of this correlation. However, the corresponding authors of these articles were contacted by email to request the Pearson correlation estimate of this association and the sample size used to calculate it. Nineteen authors replied to our email: Eight authors provided raw data for 10 studies62–71 and 11 authors provided the Pearson’s correlation estimate29,72–81. In addition, the Pearson’s correlation estimate of two articles were calculated based on information reported in the article82,83. This process reduced the number of studies excluded at step 5 to 54, resulting in a total of 64 articles included from the databases. Using reference screening and forward citation tracking, the authors identified 27 studies that assessed both physical activity and kinesiophobia, of which 8 reported an estimate of their relationship84–91 and 19 did not92–110. The corresponding authors of these 19 studies were asked by email to provide this estimate or their data. Two authors sent the estimate104,107. Seventeen emails remained unanswered92–103,105,106,108–110.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram

Descriptive Results

Participants

The 74 articles identified by the systematic review included a total of 13388 participants aged 11 to 85 years, including 7308 women, 4729 men, and 1351 participants whose gender and sex was not reported. The studies investigated populations with pain (n = 37)62,64–71,73,76–81,83,88,89,111–128 cardiac conditions (n = 6)86,87,104,129–131, surgery (n = 8)63,131–137, arthritis (n = 10)75,82,84,85,91,138–142, neurologic conditions (n = 3)90,143,144, pulmonary conditions (n = 3)145–147, cancer (n = 1)74, women health conditions (n = 2)72,148, as well as healthy adults (n = 6)29,85,107,149–151 (Table 1).

Kinesiophobia

In 54 of the 74 studies, kinesiophobia was assessed using the 17-item TSK (TSK-17; n = 38)29,62,64,65,68,72,73,77,84,85,90,91,111–114,117–120,122–125,130,133–135,138–144,146,148,150 shorter versions of the TSK [(TSK-11152; n = 10)63,81,88,116,121,122,128,131,136,151, (TSK-14; n = 1)74, (TSK-13153; n = 2)115,137, (TSK-7; n = 1)145], or its adaptation for patients with coronary artery disease (TSK-Heart154; n = 2)86,87. The TSK is a questionnaire that assesses the belief that movements can lead to (re)injury, pain, or aggravation of an underlying and serious medical condition28. Each item is rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). On the TSK-17, a score of 37 is used to distinguish between low (≤ 37) and high (> 37) levels of kinesiophobia27. On the TSK-13, scores inferior to 23 are considered sub-clinical155. The other measures that were used are the Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire156 (FABQ; n = 15)66,67,69–71,76,78–80,82,83,104,126,127,132, Kinesiophobia Causes Scale157 (KCS; n = 2)107,149, the Fear of Activities in Situations scale (FActS; n = 1)129, the Brief Fear of Movement Scale for Osteoarthritis158 (BFMSO; n = 1)75, and Breathlessness Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ; n = 1)147.

Sixty-four studies reported mean levels of kinesiophobia (Table 1). The studies based on the TSK-17 or TSK-Heart (mean range: 17 to 68) reporting the highest levels of kinesiophobia were those involving participants with a cardiovascular condition (41.4 to 49.7), followed by studies testing participants with arthritis (31.8 to 45.27) or chronic pain (30.5 to 44.6). Levels of kinesiophobia were lower in participants with a neurological (36.6 to 41), pulmonary (20.7 to 39.6), women health (36), or surgical condition (32.9 to 35.9), and in healthy adults (18.9 to 39.0).

Physical Activity

Fifty-one studies assessed physical activity using a self-reported measure (Table 1). Most of these questionnaire-based studies used the short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ-SF; n = 20)29,73,76,78,79,82,85,86,112,114,116,130,131,133,138–141,146,147 which consists of 6 items assessing time spent in light (i.e., walking), moderate (e.g., carrying light loads, cycling at moderate speed, doubles tennis), and vigorous physical activity (e.g., digging, fast cycling, heavy lifting, aerobics) over the last 7 days159. Other questionnaires were used to assess physical activity, such as the Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire160 (BHPAQ; n = 5)64,89,90,107,113, Saltin-Grimby Physical Activity Level Scale161 (SGPALS; n = 5)80,104,115,125,135, Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire162 (GLTEQ; n = 2)121,134, Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire163 (MLTPAQ; n = 1)136, Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly164 (PASE; n = 2)123,149, Physical Activity Questionnaire for the Elderly164 (PAQE; n = 1)72, Short Questionnaire to Assess Health Enhancing Physical Activity165 (SQUASH; n = 1)142, the Tegner Assessment Scale166 (TAS; n = 1)63, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score167 (n = 1)84, Leisure Time Physical Activity Index168 (LTPAI; n = 1)67, Global Physical Activity Questionnaire169 (GPAQ; n = 2)77,83, Freiburger Questionnaire on Physical Activity170 (FQPA; n = 1)127, Jurka Physical Activity Scale171 (JPAS; n = 1)81, Rapid Assessment of Physical Activity questionnaire172 (RAPAQ; n = 1)68, Tecumseh Occupational Activity Questionnaire173 (TOAQ; n = 1)136, and Australian Health Survey-derived questions (AHS; n = 1)71.

Physical activity was also assessed with devices such as accelerometers measuring accelerations in 3 dimensions (n = 23)65,66,74,75,78,91,110,113,117,118,120,122,124,126,129,132,137,143–145,148,150,151 and pedometers measuring the number of steps (n = 3)63,88,128 (Table 1). In most studies, the device was worn at the hip (n = 10)63,91,113,117,124,129,137,148,150,151. Other positions included wrist (n = 5)65,111,126,132,143, arm (n = 3)74,144,145, trunk (n = 2)118,122, and thigh (n = 1)75, with five studies not reporting where the device was worn66,78,88,120,128. Most studies that employed accelerometer-based measures used the ActiGraph (Actigraph, LLC, Pensacola, FL, USA) GT3X+ (n = 4)120,137,150,151, wGT3X-BT (n = 2)138,148 or GT9X Link (n = 2)78,132. The other accelerometers were the RT3 (Stayhealthy Inc., Monrovia, CA, USA; n = 3)117,118,124, the SenseWear Pro3 Armband (BodyMedia, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; n = 3)74,144,146, the Activity Sensory Move II (movisens GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany; n = 1)129, the LifeShirt (Vivometrics, Inc., Ventura, CA, USA; n = 1)122, the ActiWatch (Mini Mitter Co., Inc., Bend, OR, USA; n = 1)111, AX3 (Axtivity, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; n = 1)65, FitBit (FitBit Inc., San Francisco, CA) Charge HR (n = 1)126, Charge 3 (n = 1)143, and the Activ8 (2M Engineering, North Brabant, Netherland, n = 1)66. The type of accelerometer was not reported in one study113. The pedometers were the Digi-Walker SW-200 (New Lifestyles Inc., Lees Summit, MO, USA; n = 1)63, the Active Style Pro HJA-350IT (Omron Heathcare, Kyoto, Japan; n = 1)88 and Yamax Power-Walker EX-510 3D (Pedometer Express, Minnesota, USA; n = 1)128. These devices were worn for 5 days (n = 1)111, 6 days (n = 1129), 7 days (n = 16)63,65,75,88,91,113,117,118,120,124,132,137,144,148,150,151, or 14 days (n = 1)126. The remaining 7 studies did not specify the number of days the device was worn66,74,78,122,128,143,145. All studies provided the accelerometer or pedometer on the day kinesiophobia was assessed (n = 18)63,65,66,75,78,88,89,111,113,120,122,126,132,137,143,148,150. The remaining studies did not specify whether kinesiophobia was measured the day the device was provide or the last day of physical activity assessment (n = 7)74,118,124,128,144,146,151.

To assess physical activity, the studies used the following outcomes: Score from a questionnaire (e.g., TAS, PAQE, BHPAQ, SGPALS, LTPAQ, n = 24)63,64,67,68,72,80,81,84,87,89,90,104,107,113,115,119,121,123,125,127,134,137,149, MET-min/week (n = 23)31,73,76,77–79,83,85,86,112,114,116,130,131,133,136,138–142,146,147, steps per day (n = 14)63,65,75,78,88,113,120,126,128,132,143–145,150, hours per day or week (n = 12)62,65,69–71,74,91,113,120,138,143,145, counts per minute (n = 4)111,113,117,137, kilocalories per day (n = 2)129,144, or percentage of active time (n = 1)122. Nine studies used multiple physical activity outcomes63,65,78,91,113,120,143–145.

Association Between Physical Activity and Kinesiophobia

Among the 74 articles included in the systematic review, 42 reported correlation coefficients of the association between physical activity and kinesiophobia. Specifically, 32 articles reported at least one Pearson’s r correlation coefficient and 12 articles reported at least one Spearman’s rho87,89,91,113,116,124,127,132,135,143,149,151. When a correlation coefficient was not reported, but the exact p-value (or t value) and sample size were available and it was possible to know the sign of the correlation, which was the case for 7 studies83,111,115,120,125,133,144, the Pearson’s r estimate was computed using an ad-hoc R code (Supplemental Code 1A). For the studies that reported a relative p-value < 0.001 instead of an exact p-value, we used a p-value of 0.0009 to estimate an approximate r value82.

Through email correspondence with the authors, we obtained 23 additional Pearson’s r estimates29,62–81,104,107. In total, 83 Pearson’s r estimates from 63 studies and 21 Spearman’s rho estimates from 12 studies were used in the meta-analysis (Table 1). The remaining study did not report a correlation coefficient and was therefore not included in the meta-analysis117. This study reported a non-statistically significant positive association between physical activity and kinesiophobia based on a standardized beta coefficient.

Pain

Mean pain intensity at rest was reported in 45 out of the 74 articles included in the systematic review. Most studies used the Visual Analog Scale174 (VAS; n = 21)65,69–71,76,78,82,85,89,90,112,114,117,119,120,122,124,126,138,139,141 or the Numeric Rating Scale175 (NRS; n =15)29,62,66,68,75,79,80,83,88,111,113,116,127,128,137. Other studies used the Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale176 (KOOS-P; n = 3)63,84,134, Brief Pain Inventory177 (n = 1)64, Oxford Knee Score178 (OKS; n = 1)140, the Quality of Well-Being Scale – Self-administered Pain Scale179 (QWBS-P; n = 1)150, the Short Form 36 bodily pain180 (SF-36; n = 1)130, the Graphic Rating Scale181 (GRS; n = 1)133, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Pain182 (FIQ-Pain, n = 1)67 and the Verbal Rating Scale183 (VRS; n = 1)104. In the meta-analysis, scores that were not on a 0-100 scale in the initial measure were scaled to that range.

Meta-Analysis

Main Meta-Analysis

Our main meta-analysis of 63 studies, 83 Pearson’s r correlation estimates, and 12278 participants revealed a statistically significant small-to-moderate negative correlation between kinesiophobia and physical activity (r = −0.19; 95% confidence interval [95CI]: −0.26 to −0.13; p < 0.0001) (Table 2; Figure 2). However, we observed substantial-to-considerable between-study statistical heterogeneity (Tau2 = 0.06, 95CI: 0.02 to 0.09; I2 = 85.5%, 95CI: 82.6 to 87.9%), and the prediction interval ranged from r = −0.605 to 0.300, indicating that a moderate positive correlation cannot be ruled out for future studies.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Main meta-analysis: Correlation between kinesiophobia and physical activity

Notes: 95% CI = 95% confidence interval, IV = Inverse variance method, Random = Random effects method.

View this table:
Table 2. Results of the main, secondary, and subgroup meta-analyses

The sampling error variance on level 1 and the value of I2 on level 2, i.e., the amount of heterogeneity variance within studies, were small (10.3% and 8.2%, respectively). The largest share of heterogeneity variance was from level 3, with between-study heterogeneity making up 81.5% of the total variation in our data (Supplemental Figure 1). Overall, this indicates that there is considerable between-study heterogeneity, and less than one tenth of the variance can be explained by differences within studies.

The 3-level model showed a better fit than the 2-level model with lower Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) (28.4 vs. 39.0) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) (35.6 vs. 43.8), indicating better performance. These lower AIC and BIC are consistent with the significant likelihood ratio test (LRT) comparing the two models (χ2 = 12.67, p = 0.0004). Therefore, although the 3-level model introduces an additional parameter, this added complexity has improved our estimate of the pooled effect.

Publication bias assessment

Egger’s regression test using the standard errors of the effect size estimates as a predictor in the meta-regression showed that the coefficient of the standard error was significant (b = −1.497, 95CI: −2.618 to −0.3754, p = 0.0095), suggesting that the data in the funnel plot was asymmetrical (Figure 3A). This asymmetry may be explained by publication bias, but also by other potential causes, such as different study procedures and between-study heterogeneity184, which was substantial-to-considerable here.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Publication bias assessment. Contour-enhanced funnel plot of the main meta-analysis

(A). The vertical dashed line represents the average effect size. The two other dashed lines represent the idealized funnel-shape that studies are expected to follow. P-curve analysis (B). The blue line indicates the distribution of the analyzed p-values. The red dotted line illustrates a uniform distribution of the p-values, indicating the absence of a true effect.

The 83 Pearson’s r correlation estimates were provided to the p-curve analysis. The observed p-curve included 35 statistically significant results (p < 0.05), 27 of which were highly significant (p < 0.025), and was visually right-skewed (Figure 3B). The other results were excluded because they had a p > 0.05. The p-value of the right-skewness test was < 0.001 for both the half curve (curve of p-values ≤ 0.025) and the full curve (curve of p-values < 0.05), confirming that the p-curve was right-skewed and suggesting that the effect of our meta-analysis is true, i.e., that the effect we estimated is not an artifact caused by selective reporting (e.g., p-hacking) in the literature185. In addition, the statistical power of the studies that were included in the p-curve analysis was 97% (90CI: 93 to 98%), suggesting that approximately 90% of the significant results are expected to be replicable.

Secondary Meta-Analyses

Results of the secondary meta-analysis of 12 studies, 21 Spearman’s rho correlation estimates, and 2084 participants was consistent with the main meta-analysis as it showed a statistically significant small-to-moderate negative correlation between kinesiophobia and physical activity (r = −0.20; 95CI: −0.38 to −0.01; p = 0.049) (Table 2; Supplemental Figure 2). However, we observed substantial-to-considerable between-study statistical heterogeneity (Tau2 = 0.10, 95CI: 0.04 to 0.28; I2 = 86.3%) and the prediction interval ranged from r = −0.710 to 0.445, indicating that a moderate positive correlation cannot be ruled out for future studies.

Subgroup Meta-Analyses

The test of subgroup differences between health status was conducted on studies comprising people with chronic (k = 35) or acute pain (k = 2), arthritis (k = 11), a cardiovascular condition (k = 10), a neurological condition (k = 8), surgery (k = 5), older age (k = 3), obstructive sleep apnea (k = 2), a pulmonary condition (k = 2), fibromyalgia (k = 2), cancer (k = 1), as well as in post-partum women (k = 1) and healthy young adults (k = 1) (Table 2; Supplemental Figure 3). We found a statistical moderating effect of health status (p = 0.0014). The relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity was statistically significant only in studies that included participants with cardiac condition (r = −0.30; 95CI: −0.47 to −0.11), arthritis (r = −0.25; 95CI: −0.39 to −0.10), a neurologic condition (r = −0.53; 95CI: −0.69 to −0.32), a pulmonary condition (r = - 0.68; 95CI: −0.82 to −0.46), or older adults (r = −0.40; 95CI: −0.60 to −0.14). We found no evidence of an association between kinesiophobia and physical activity in studies that included participants with chronic pain (r = −0.07; 95CI: −0.16 to 0.01) or acute pain (r = −0.13; 95CI: −0.45 to 0.23). Statistical heterogeneity was higher in the studies comprising people with a pulmonary condition (I2 = 98.1%), arthritis (I2 = 93.4%), or older adults (I2 = 91.2%) than in the studies comprising people with a cardiac (I2 = 28.7%) or neurologic condition (I2 = 55.9%).

The test of subgroup differences between self-reported (k = 54) and device-based (k = 29) measures of physical activity showed no evidence of a moderating effect of the type of physical activity measure (p = 0.171; Table 2). Both self-reported measures (r = −0.22; 95CI: −0.29 to −0.14; I2 = 89.3%) and device-based measures (r = −0.13; 95CI: −0.24 to −0.02; I2 = 57.2%) (Supplemental Figure 4) showed a negative association between kinesiophobia and physical activity.

We also found no evidence of a moderating effect of physical activity instruments (p = 0.209) (Supplemental Figure 5), physical activity outcome (p = 0.685) (Supplemental Figure 6), or kinesiophobia instrument (p = 0.452) (Supplemental Figure 7).

Meta-Regressions

Age did not statistically influence the correlation estimates of the meta-analysis studies (k = 72; p = 0.349). Similarly, the proportion of women (k = 72; p = 0.555) and the mean level of pain in the studies (k = 49; p = 0.481) did not influence correlation estimates.

Sensitivity Analysis

The meta-regression by quality score showed that a study’s quality did not influence correlation estimates (k = 83; p = 0.373).

DISCUSSION

The main objective of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the direct relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity. In addition, we examined the influence of potential moderators, such as health status. To our knowledge, this is the first review of its kind on this research topic.

Kinesiophobia and Physical Activity

Both the main meta-analysis based on Pearson’s r correlation estimates and the secondary meta-analysis based on Spearman’s rho correlation estimates showed a small-to-moderate negative correlation between kinesiophobia and physical activity. Importantly, this correlation was observed bot in studies using both self-report (e.g., IPAQ) and device-based measures (i.e., accelerometers or pedometers). These results are consistent with our hypothesis and the dual models of physical activity32–35. According to these theoretical models, our findings suggest that the fear of movement characteristic of kinesiophobia triggers an impulse to avoid physical activity behaviors, which contributes to the maintenance or exacerbation of the initial fear. Accordingly, kinesiophobia and physical inactivity would be self-perpetuating or even self-reinforcing.

Health Status

Our results suggest that patients with a cardiac, neurologic, arthritic, or pulmonary condition, as well as older adults, may be at greater risk for this negative relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity than those with other conditions. In individuals with a cardiac condition, kinesiophobia and its impact on physical activity may be explained by a fear of inducing a new cardiac event186 or “causing more damage to the heart”187, but also by breathlessness (i.e., dyspnea), which reduces the ability to be physically active and damages confidence, leading to persistent anticipation of negative outcomes from physical activity188. Dyspnea is also a major barrier to physical activity in people with a pulmonary condition, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)147. Patients with asthma may have additional disease-related barriers to physical activity, such as the fear of provoking respiratory symptoms and exacerbations189. Regarding neurologic conditions, chest tightness reported in patients with Parkinson’s disease as a barrier to exercise may be a factor contributing to the association between kinesiophobia and physical activity190. Another potential factor in these patients190, as well as in stroke survivors191 and healthy older adults192, is fear of falling. In patients with osteoarthritis, the belief that physical activity will “damage the joints”193 and the perceived fragility of their physical status194 may be factors contributing to the relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity.

Although our results showed no evidence of an association between kinesiophobia and physical activity in other health conditions such as cancer, post-surgery, post-partum, or obstructive sleep apnea, these effects cannot be fully ruled out, as the lack of statistical significance could be explained by a lack of statistical power in these subgroup meta-analyses including fewer estimates (k = 1 to 5).

Pain versus Fear

Our results showed no evidence of an association between kinesiophobia and physical activity in people with fibromyalgia, acute pain, or chronic pain. This finding was surprising because fear of pain is a key component of kinesiophobia, appearing in 10 of the 17 items on the TSK-17 and TSK-Heart scales, and reinforces the importance of considering the multidimensional nature of kinesiophobia, which not only relates to pain but also reflects fear of injury and fear of worsening a health condition.

In addition, contrary to our expectations, we found no statistical evidence showing that pain intensity at rest influenced the effect of kinesiophobia on physical activity, despite the substantial number of estimates included in this analysis (k = 23). This result is consistent with the weak relationship that has been shown between kinesiophobia and pain195, further suggesting that it is not the actual pain that prevents physical activity, but the fear of triggering pain, injury, or aggravating an underlying condition. However, this absence of evidence might be related to the methods used to assess pain, which may be better assessed by pain history (e.g., pain duration in months) or pain intensity during exercise.

Limitations

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis should be interpreted with consideration of several limitations. (1) We report considerable heterogeneity across the included studies, which may be explained by the diversity of the methods used to assess physical activity (questionnaires vs. accelerometers vs. pedometers), the instruments used in these methods (14 different questionnaires, 14 different accelerometers and pedometers), and the physical activity outcomes (n = 6), but also by the different questionnaires used to assess kinesiophobia (n = 11). This heterogeneity suggests that the measures of kinesiophobia and physical activity used in the literature reflect different dimensions of these two constructs. For example, self-reported measures of physical activity do not accurately reflect actual levels of physical activity196. (2) Because kinesiophobia is a state, i.e., a dynamic psychological variable, the time difference between the physical activity and kinesiophobia assessments, as well as the context of assessment, may have influenced the results. (3) While a subgroup meta-analysis showed no evidence of an effect of the type of TSK scale, inconsistencies have been noted in the purported dimensions assessed by different TSK scales or across populations197, which may have influenced our results. (4) Only 21 of the 98 authors we contacted (21%) shared their estimates (n = 13) or raw data (n = 8) with us, which is more than reported in previous literature198. Including these missing data may have affected the results.

Conclusion

Higher levels of kinesiophobia were associated with lower levels of physical activity, especially in people with a cardiac, neurologic, arthritic, and pulmonary condition. According to theoretical models, this relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity results from automatic processes that may be self-reinforcing and should therefore not be overlooked. However, heterogeneity between studies was substantial-to-considerable for some results, and the evidence for publication bias calls for cautious conclusions about this potential relationship. More evidence is required to determine the impact kinesiophobia should have on therapeutic decisions when aiming to maintain or increase physical activity. Particularly, prospective studies are needed to better understand the factors and mechanisms that influence the relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity.

Data Availability

All data, scripts, and materials used in the present study are available online at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11638244 (version 1.2). The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022364063

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11638244

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Funding

Matthieu P. Boisgontier is supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC; RGPIN-2021-03153), the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Mitacs, and the Banting Research Foundation. The funders had no role in the data collection, management, analysis and interpretation, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the report for publication. Ata Farajzadeh is supported by an Admission Scholarship, a Doctoral International Scholarship, and a Special Merit Scholarship from the University of Ottawa.

Data and Code Sharing

According to good research practices44, the dataset, R Markdown script, and supplemental material are freely available in Zenodo199. A preprint version of this manuscript is publicly available online200 and has been recommended by Peer Community In Health & Movement Sciences201.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest relating to the content of this article

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Supplemental Code 1.
Supplemental Code 1.

R scripts.

Supplemental Figure 1.
Supplemental Figure 1.

Heterogeneity variance.

Supplemental Figure 2.
Supplemental Figure 2.

Secondary meta-analysis based on Pearson’s rho estimates.

Supplemental Figure 3.
Supplemental Figure 3.

Subgroup meta-analysis: Differences by health status.

Supplemental Figure 4.
Supplemental Figure 4.

Subgroup meta-analysis: Differences by physical activity measure (self-reported vs. device-based).

Supplemental Figure 5.
Supplemental Figure 5.

Subgroup meta-analysis: Differences by physical activity measurement instrument.

Supplemental Figure 6.
Supplemental Figure 6.

Subgroup meta-analysis: Differences by physical activity outcome

Supplemental Figure 7.
Supplemental Figure 7.

Subgroup meta-analysis: Differences by kinesiophobia measurement instrument.

Acknowledgements

Based on the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)202 individual author contributions to this work are as follows: Miriam Goubran: Conceptualization, Methodology (Systematic Review), Investigation, Data Curation, Writing (Original Draft), Writing (Review and Editing); Ata Farajzadeh: Methodology (Systematic Review), Investigation, Data Curation, Writing (Original Draft), Writing (Review and Editing); Ian M. Lahart: Methodology (Meta-Analysis), Formal Analysis, Visualization, Data Curation, Writing (Original Draft), Writing (Review and Editing); Martin Bilodeau: Conceptualization, Methodology (Systematic Review), Writing (Review and Editing), Supervision (MG); Matthieu P. Boisgontier: Conceptualization, Methodology (Systematic Review and Meta Analysis), Investigation, Formal Analysis, Data Curation, Visualization; Writing (Original Draft), Writing (Review and Editing), Supervision (MG and AF), Project Administration, Funding Acquisition.

Footnotes

  • The reference to the PCI recommendation has been added. Line numbers have been removed.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Morris JN, Heady JA, Raffle PA, Roberts CG, Parks JW. Coronary heart-disease and physical activity of work. Lancet. 1953;262(6795):1053–1057. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(53)90665-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, et al. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):219–229. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61031-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    Salinas-Rodríguez A, Manrique-Espinoza B, Palazuelos-González R, Rivera-Almaraz A, Jáuregui A. Physical activity and sedentary behavior trajectories and their associations with quality of life, disability, and all-cause mortality. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2022;19(1):13. doi:10.1186/s11556-022-00291-3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    Wahid A, Manek N, Nichols M, et al. Quantifying the association between physical activity and cardiovascular disease and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5(9):e002495. doi:10.1161/JAHA.115.002495
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Bleich SN, Vercammen KA, Zatz LY. Interventions to prevent global childhood overweight and obesity: a systematic review. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6:332–346. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30358-3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    Schuch F, Vancampfort D, Firth J, et al. Physical activity and sedentary behavior in people with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2017;210:139–150. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.10.050
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Liu X, Zhang D, Liu Y, et al. Dose-response association between physical activity and incident hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Hypertension. 2017;69(5):813–820. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.08994
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Moore SC, Lee IM, Weiderpass E, et al. Association of leisure-time physical activity with risk of 26 types of cancer in 1.44 million adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(6):816–825. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1548
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Najar J, Östling S, Gudmundsson P, et al. Cognitive and physical activity and dementia: a 44-year longitudinal population study of women. Neurology. 2019;92(12):E1322–E1330. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000007021
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    World Health Organization. Physical activity - Key facts. October 2022. Accessed May 1, 2024. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity
  11. 11.↵
    Taylor RS, Walker S, Smart NA, et al. Impact of exercise rehabilitation on exercise capacity and quality-of-life in heart failure: individual participant meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(12):1430–1443. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.12.072
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    Molloy C, Long L, Mordi IR, et al. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;3(3):CD003331. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003331.pub6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    Daste C, Kirren Q, Akoum J, Lefèvre-Colau MM, Rannou F, Nguyen C. Physical activity for osteoarthritis: Efficiency and review of recommandations. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88(6):105207. doi:10.1016/j.jbspin.2021.105207
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    van Allen Z, Orsholits D, Boisgontier MP. Pre-stroke physical activity matters for functional limitations: A longitudinal case-control study of 12,860 participants. Phys Ther. 2024. doi:10.1101/2023.09.14.23295576
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    Turan TN, Nizam A, Lynn MJ, et al. Relationship between risk factor control and vascular events in the SAMMPRIS trial. Neurology. 2017;88(4):379–385. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000003534
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    Brenner H, Chen C. The colorectal cancer epidemic: challenges and opportunities for primary, secondary and tertiary prevention. Br J Cancer. 2018;119(7):785–792. doi:10.1038/s41416-018-0264-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Boisgontier MP, Iversen MD. Physical inactivity: a behavioral disorder in the physical therapist’s scope of practice. Phys Ther. 2020;100(5):743–746. doi:10.1093/PTJ/PZAA011
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    O’Donoghue G, Perchoux C, Mensah K, et al. A systematic review of correlates of sedentary behaviour in adults aged 18-65 years: a socio-ecological approach. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):163. doi:10.1186/s12889-016-2841-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Garcia L, Mendonça G, Benedetti TRB, et al. Barriers and facilitators of domain-specific physical activity: a systematic review of reviews. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1964. doi:10.1186/s12889-022-14385-1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    Biddle SJH, Gorely T, Faulkner G, Mutrie N. Psychology of physical activity: a 30-year reflection on correlates, barriers, and theory. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2023;21(1):1–14. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2022.2147261
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    Azevedo MR, Araújo CLP, Reichert FF, Siqueira FV, da Silva MC, Hallal PC. Gender differences in leisure-time physical activity. Int J Public Health. 2007;52(1):8–15. doi:10.1007/s00038-006-5062-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.↵
    Caspersen CJ, Pereira MA, Curran KM. Changes in physical activity patterns in the United States, by sex and cross-sectional age. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(9):1601–1609. doi:10.1097/00005768-200009000-00013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    Cheval B, Rebar AL, Miller MW, et al. Cognitive resources moderate the adverse impact of poor perceived neighborhood conditions on self-reported physical activity of older adults. Prev Med. 2019;126:105741. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.05.029
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    Cheval B, Orsholits D, Sieber S, Courvoisier D, Cullati S, Boisgontier MP. Relationship between decline in cognitive resources and physical activity. Health Psychol. 2020;39(6):519–528. doi:10.1037/hea0000857
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    Cheval B, Sieber S, Guessous I, et al. Effect of early- and adult-life socioeconomic circumstances on physical inactivity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50(3):476–485. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001472
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Kori SH, Miller RP, Todd DD. Kinesiophobia: a new view of chronic pain behavior. Pain Manag. 1990;3:35–43.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Vlaeyen JWS, Kole-Snijders AMJ, Boeren RGB, van Eek H. Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance. Pain. 1995;62(3):363–372. doi:10.1016/0304-3959(94)00279-N
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    Miller R, Kori S, Todd D. The Tampa Scale: a measure of kinisiophobia. Clin J Pain. 1991;7(1):51–52.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Bahar Özdemir Y. Investigation of low back pain in the white-collar population working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. J Phys Med Rehabil Sci. 2021;24(2):135–142. doi:10.31609/jpmrs.2021-81527
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. 30.↵
    Stults-Kolehmainen MA, Blacutt M, Bartholomew JB, et al. Motivation states for physical activity and sedentary behavior: desire, urge, wanting, and craving. Front Psychol. 2020;11:568390. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568390
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. 31.↵
    Stevens CJ, Baldwin AS, Bryan AD, Conner M, Rhodes RE. Williams DM. Affective determinants of physical activity: a conceptual framework and narrative review. Front Psychol. 2020;11:568331. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568331
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Brand R, Ekkekakis P. Affective–reflective theory of physical inactivity and exercise. Ger J Exerc Sport Res. 2018;48:48–58. doi:10.1007/s12662-017-0477-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. 33.
    Cheval B, Boisgontier MP. Promouvoir une activité physique régulière chez les patients : l’importance de la perception de l’effort. STAPS. 2024. doi:10.3917/sta.pr1.0091
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.
    Cheval B, Boisgontier MP. The theory of effort minimization in physical activity. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2021;49(3):168–178. doi:10.1249/JES.0000000000000252
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Conroy DE, Berry TR. Automatic affective evaluations of physical activity. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2017;45(4):230–237. doi:10.1249/JES.0000000000000120
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Farajzadeh A, Goubran M, Beehler A, et al. Relationship between age and physical and sedentary stimuli. Peer Community J. 2023;3:e21. doi:10.24072/pcjournal.246
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.↵
    Hanel J, Owen PJ, Held S, et al. Effects of exercise training on fear-avoidance in pain and pain-free populations: systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2020;50(1):2193–2207. doi:10.1007/s40279-020-01345-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Jadhakhan F, Sobeih R, Falla D. Effects of exercise/physical activity on fear of movement in people with spine-related pain: a systematic review. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1213199. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1213199
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    Martinez-Calderon J, Flores-Cortes M, Morales-Asencio JM, Luque-Suarez A. Conservative interventions reduce fear in individuals with chronic low back pain: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med. 2020;101(2):329–358. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2019.08.470
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.↵
    Rovner GS, Sunnerhagen KS, Björkdahl A, et al. Chronic pain and sex-differences; women accept and move, while men feel blue. PLOS One. 2017;12(4):e0175737. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175737
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    John JN, Ugwu EC, Okezue OC, et al. Kinesiophobia and associated factors among patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. Disabil Rehabil. 2023;45(16):2651–2659. doi:10.1080/09638288.2022.2103747
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n160. doi:10.1136/bmj.n160
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.↵
    Caldwell AR, Vigotsky AD, Tenan MS, et al. Moving sport and exercise science forward: a call for the adoption of more transparent research practices. Sports Med. 2020;50(3):449–459. doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01227-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    Boisgontier MP. Research integrity requires to be aware of good and questionable research practices. Eur Rehabil J. 2021;2(1):1–3. doi:10.52057/erj.v2i1.24
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.↵
    Goubran M, Boisgontier MP, Bilodeau M. Kinesiophobia and physical activity: a systematic review. PROSPERO (CRD42022364063). October 17, 2022. Accessed May 1, 2024. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022364063
  46. 46.↵
    National Institutes of Health. Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2013. Accessed May 1, 2024. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools
  47. 47.↵
    Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N; TREND Group. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(3):361–366. doi:10.2105/ajph.94.3.361
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. 48.↵
    Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010;1(2):100–107. doi:10.4103/0976-500X.72352
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Version 4.3.1. Vienna, Austria: Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2023. https://www.r-project.org
  50. 50.↵
    Schwarzer G. meta: general package for meta-analysis [R package]. Version 6.5-0; 2023. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/meta/meta.pdf
  51. 51.↵
    Viechtbauer W. metafor: meta-analysis package for R [R package]. Version 4.2-0; 2023. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/metafor/metafor.pdf
  52. 52.↵
    Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    Harrer M, Cuijpers P, Furukawa TA, Ebert DD. Doing Meta-Analysis with R: A Hands-On Guide. Boca Raton, FL and London: Chapmann & Hall/CRC Press. ISBN. 2021;978-0-367-61007. doi:10.1201/9781003107347
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. 54.↵
    Cheung M. Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: a structural equation modeling approach. Psychol Methods. 2014;19(2):211–229. doi:10.1037/a0032968
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. 55.↵
    Viechtbauer W. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Educ Behav Stat. 2005;30(3):261–293. doi:10.3102/10769986030003261
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  56. 56.↵
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  57. 57.↵
    Knapp G, Hartung J. Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. Stat Med. 2003;22(17):2693–2710. doi:10.1002/sim.1482
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  58. 58.↵
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed.; 1988.
  59. 59.↵
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. 60.↵
    Marey A. Multilevel meta analysis. RPubs, 2021. Accessed May 1, 2024. https://rpubs.com/amany33/814435
  61. 61.↵
    Simonsohn U, Nelson LD, Simmons JP. P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014;143(2):534–547. doi:10.1037/a0033242
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. 62.↵
    Assadourian M, Bailly F, Letellier P, et al. Criteria for inclusion in programs of functional restoration for chronic low back pain: pragmatic study. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2020;63(3):189–194. doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2019.06.019
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. 63.↵
    Baez SE, Hoch MC, Hoch JM. Psychological factors are associated with return to pre-injury levels of sport and physical activity after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(2):495–501. doi:10.1007/s00167-019-05696-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. 64.↵
    Luthi F, Vuistiner P, Favre C, Hilfiker R, Léger B. Avoidance, pacing, or persistence in multidisciplinary functional rehabilitation for chronic musculoskeletal pain: an observational study with cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. PLOS One. 2018;13(9):e0203329. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203329
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. 65.↵
    Alzahrani H, Mackey M, Stamatakis E, Shirley D. Wearables-based walking program in addition to usual physiotherapy care for the management of patients with low back pain at medium or high risk of chronicity: a pilot randomized controlled trial. PLOS One. 2021;16(8):e0256459. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256459
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. 66.↵
    Koppenaal T, van Dongen JM, Kloek CJ, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stratified blended physiotherapy intervention compared with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific low back pain: cluster randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e43034. doi:10.2196/43034
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  67. 67.↵
    Palstam A, Larsson A, Bjersing J, et al. Perceived exertion at work in women with fibromyalgia: explanatory factors and comparison with healthy women. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46(8):773–780. doi:10.2340/16501977-1843
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. 68.↵
    Zadro JR, Shirley D, Nilsen TI, Mork PJ, Ferreira PH. Family history influences the effectiveness of home exercise in older people with chronic low back pain: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101(8):1322–1331. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2020.03.019
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. 69.↵
    Marshall PW, Schabrun S, Knox MF. Physical activity and the mediating effect of fear, depression, anxiety, and catastrophizing on pain related disability in people with chronic low back pain. PLOS One. 2017;12(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0180788
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.
    Marshall PW, Morrison, NM V, Mifsud A, Gibbs M, Khan N, Meade T. The moderating effect of treatment engagement on fear-avoidance beliefs in people with chronic low back pain. Clin J Pain. 2021;37(12):872–880. doi:10.1097/AJP.0000000000000991
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. 71.↵
    Marshal PW, Morrison NMV, Gibbs M, Schabrun SM. The effect of exercise engagement on low back disability at 12-months is mediated by pain and catastrophizing in a community sample of people with chronic low back pain. Behav Res Ther. 2022;159:104205. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2022.104205
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  72. 72.↵
    Bernard P, Ninot G, Bernard PL, et al. Effects of a six-month walking intervention on depression in inactive post-menopausal women: a randomized controlled trial. Aging Ment Health. 2015;19(6):485–492. doi:10.1080/13607863.2014.948806
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. 73.↵
    Priore LB, Lack S, Garcia C, Azevedo FM, de Oliveira Silva D. Two weeks of wearing a knee brace compared with minimal intervention on kinesiophobia at 2 and 6 weeks in people with patellofemoral pain: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101(4):613–623. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2019.10.190
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. 74.↵
    Strandberg E, Bean C, Vassbakk-Svindland K, et al. Who makes it all the way? Participants vs. decliners, and completers vs. drop-outs, in a 6-month exercise trial during cancer treatment. Results from the Phys-Can RCT. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30(2):1739–1748. doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06576-0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. 75.↵
    Uritani D, Kasza J, Campbell PK, Metcalf B, Egerton T. The association between psychological characteristics and physical activity levels in people with knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):269. doi:10.1186/s12891-020-03305-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  76. 76.↵
    Alamam DM, Moloney N, Leaver A, Alsobayel HI, Mackey MG. Multidimensional prognostic factors for chronic low back pain-related disability: a longitudinal study in a Saudi population. Spine J. 2019;19(9),1548–1558. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2019.05.010
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. 77.↵
    Massé-Alarie H, Beaulieu LD, Preuss R, Schneider C. Influence of paravertebral muscles training on brain plasticity and postural control in chronic low back pain. Scand J Pain. 2016;12(1):74–83. doi:10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.03.005
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  78. 78.↵
    Polaski AM, Phelps AL, Smith TJ, et al. Integrated meditation and exercise therapy: a randomized controlled pilot of a combined nonpharmacological intervention focused on reducing disability and pain in patients with chronic low back pain. Pain Med. 2021;22(2):444–458. doi:10.1093/pm/pnaa403
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  79. 79.↵
    Rabey M, Smith A, Beales D, Slater H, O’Sullivan P. Multidimensional prognostic modelling in people with chronic axial low back pain. Clin J Pain. 2017;33(10):877–891. doi:10.1097/AJP.0000000000000478
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    Sandal LF, Bach K, Øverås CK, et al. Effectiveness of app-delivered, tailored self-management support for adults with lower back pain–related disability: a SELFBACK randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(10):1288–1296. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4097
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  81. 81.↵
    Suttmiller AMB, Cavallario JM, Baez SE, Martinez JC, McCann RS. Perceived instability, pain, and psychological factors for prediction of function and disability in individuals with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2022;57(11-12):1048–1054. doi:10.4085/1062-6050-0605.21
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  82. 82.↵
    Demmelmaier I, Björk A, Dufour AB, Nordgren B, Opava, CH. Trajectories of fear-avoidance beliefs on physical activity over two years in people with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2018;70(5):695–702. doi:10.1002/acr.23419
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. 83.↵
    Ho-A-Tham N, Struyf N, Ting-A-Kee B, de Almeida Mello J, Vanlandewijck Y, Dankaerts W. Physical activity, fear avoidance beliefs and level of disability in a multi-ethnic female population with chronic low back pain in Suriname: a population-based study. PLOS One. 2022;17(10):e0276974. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276974
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  84. 84.↵
    Aydemir B, Huang CH, Foucher KC. Strength and physical activity in osteoarthritis: the mediating role of kinesiophobia. J Orthop Res. 2022;40(5):1135–1142. doi:10.1002/jor.25151 81
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  85. 85.↵
    Baday-Keskin D, Ekinci B. The relationship between kinesiophobia and health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a controlled cross-sectional study. Joint Bone Spine. 2022;89(2):105275. doi:10.1016/j.jbspin.2021.105275
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. 86.↵
    Dąbek J, Knapik A, Gallert-Kopyto W, Brzęk AM, Piotrkowicz J, Gąsior Z. Fear of movement (kinesiophobia) - an underestimated problem in Polish patients at various stages of coronary artery disease. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2020;27(1):56–60. doi:10.26444/aaem/106143
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  87. 87.↵
    Knapik A, Dąbek J, Brzęk A. Kinesiophobia as a problem in adherence to physical activity recommendations in elderly Polish patients with coronary artery disease. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:2129–2135. doi:10.2147/PPA.S216196
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  88. 88.↵
    Minetama M, Kawakami M, Teraguchi M, et al. Associations between psychological factors and daily step count in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Physiother Theory Pract. 2022;38(10):1519–1527. doi:10.1080/09593985.2020.1855685
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. 89.↵
    Pazzinatto MF, Silva DO, Willy RW, Azevedo FM, Barton CJ. Fear of movement and (re)injury is associated with condition specific outcomes and health-related quality of life in women with patellofemoral pain. Physiother Theory Pract. 2022;38(9):1254–1263. doi:10.1080/09593985.2020.1830323
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  90. 90.↵
    Wasiuk-Zowada D, Brzęk A, Krzystanek E, Knapik A. Kinesiophobia in people with multiple sclerosis and its relationship with physical activity, pain and acceptance of disease. Medicina. 2022;58(3):414. doi:10.3390/medicina58030414
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  91. 91.↵
    Yuksel Karsli T, Bayraktar D, Ozer Kaya D, et al. Comparison of physical activity levels among different sub-types of axial spondyloarthritis patients and healthy controls. Mod Rheumatol. 2021;31(6):1202–1207. doi:10.1080/14397595.2021.1891676
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  92. 92.↵
    Birimoglu Okuyan C, Deveci E. The effectiveness of Tai Chi Chuan on fear of movement, prevention of falls, physical activity, and cognitive status in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized controlled trial. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2021;57(3):1273–1281. doi:10.1111/ppc.12684
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  93. 93.
    de Vries HJ, Reneman MF, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JHB, Brouwer S. Workers who stay at work despite chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain: do they differ from workers with sick leave? J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(4):489–502. doi:10.1007/s10926-012-9360-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. 94.
    Duarte N, Santos C, Hughes SL, Paúl C. Feasibility and impact of Fit & Strong! Program in Portuguese older adults with osteoarthritis: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Geriatr Nurs. 2020;41(6):804–811. doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2020.04.005
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  95. 95.
    Gutke A, Lundberg M, Östgaard HC, Öberg B. Impact of postpartum lumbopelvic pain on disability, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, activity level, kinesiophobia, and depressive symptoms. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(3):440–448. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1487-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. 96.
    Ilves O, Häkkinen A, Dekker J, et al. Effectiveness of postoperative home-exercise compared with usual care on kinesiophobia and physical activity in spondylolisthesis: a randomized controlled trial. J Rehab Med. 2017;49(9):751–757. doi:10.2340/16501977-2268
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  97. 97.
    Jakobsson M, Brisby H, Gutke A, et al. Prediction of objectively measured physical activity and self-reported disability following lumbar fusion surgery. World Neurosurg. 2019;121:e77–e88. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.08.229
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. 98.
    Larsson C, Ekvall Hansson E, Sundquist K, Jakobsson U. Kinesiophobia and its relation to pain characteristics and cognitive affective variables in older adults with chronic pain. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16:128. doi:10.1186/s12877-016-0302-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  99. 99.
    Ledoux E, Dubois JD, Descarreaux M. Physical and psychosocial predictors of functional trunk capacity in older adults with and without low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2012;35(5):338–345. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2012.04.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. 100.
    Lindbäck Y, Tropp H, Enthoven P, Abbott A, Öberg B. PREPARE: presurgery physiotherapy for patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Spine J. 2018;18(8):1347–1355. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2017.12.009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.
    Lundgren S, Olausson A, Bergström G, Stenström CH. Physical activity and pain among patients with rheumatoid arthritis - a cognitive approach. Adv Physiother. 2005;7(2):77–83. doi:10.1080/14038190510010322
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  102. 102.
    Nijs J, Meeus M, Heins M, Knoop H, Moorkens G, Bleijenberg G. Kinesiophobia, catastrophizing and anticipated symptoms before stair climbing in chronic fatigue syndrome: an experimental study. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(15):1299–1305. doi:10.3109/09638288.2011.641661
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. 103.↵
    Okan F, Özsoy AZ, Sandalcı T, Yılar Erkek Z, Zincir H. The relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity levels, gestational weight gain, and musculoskeletal pain in pregnant women. Women Health.2023;63(7):551–561. doi:10.1080/03630242.2023.2238843
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  104. 104.↵
    Roaldsen KS, Elfving B, Stanghelle JK, Talme T, Mattsson E. Fear-avoidance beliefs and pain as predictors for low physical activity in patients with leg ulcer. Physiother Res Int. 2009;14(3):167–180. doi:10.1002/pri.433
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. 105.↵
    Román-Veas J, Gutiérrez-Monclus R, López-Gil JF, et al. Baseline predictors related to functional outcomes in patients older than sixty years with complex regional pain syndrome type 1 after distal radius fracture treated conservatively: a prospective observational study. Int Orthop. 2023;47(9):2275–2284. doi:10.1007/s00264-023-05880-0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  106. 106.↵
    Roussel NA, De Kooning M, Nijs J, Wouters K, Cras P, Daenen L. The role of sensorimotor incongruence in pain in professional dancers. Motor Control. 2015;19(4):271–288. doi:10.1123/ijsnem.2013-0074
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  107. 107.↵
    Saulicz M, Saulicz E, Knapik A, et al. Impact of physical activity and fitness on the level of kinesiophobia in women of perimenopausal age. Prz Menopauzalny. 2016;15(2):104–111. doi:10.5114/pm.2016.61193
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  108. 108.↵
    Smith TO, Parsons S, Ooms A, et al. Randomised controlled trial of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention to increase physical activity following hip and knee replacement: the PEP-TALK trial. BMJ Open. 2022;12(5):e061373. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061373
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  109. 109.
    Tore NG, Oskay D, Haznedaroglu S. The quality of physiotherapy and rehabilitation program and the effect of telerehabilitation on patients with knee osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2023;42(3):903–915. doi:10.1007/s10067-022-06417-3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  110. 110.↵
    Zhang S, Wang Z, Lin X, et al. Kinesiophobia and self-management behaviour related to physical activity in Chinese patients with coronary heart disease: the mediating role of self-efficacy. Nurs Open. 2023;10(1):105–114. doi:10.1002/nop2.1283
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  111. 111.↵
    Alschuler KN, Hoodin F, Murphy SL, Rice J, Geisser ME. Factors contributing to physical activity in a chronic low back pain clinical sample: a comprehensive analysis using continuous ambulatory monitoring. Pain. 2011;152(11):2521–2527. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2011.07.017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. 112.↵
    Altuǧ F, Ünal A, Kilavuz G, Kavlak E, Çitişli V, Cavlak U. Investigation of the relationship between kinesiophobia, physical activity level and quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2016;29(3):527–531. doi:10.3233/BMR-150653
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. 113.↵
    Carvalho FA, Maher CG, Franco MR, et al. Fear of movement is not associated with objective and subjective physical activity levels in chronic nonspecific low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98(1):96–104. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2016.09.115
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  114. 114.↵
    Demirbüken İ, Özgül B, Kuru Çolak T, Aydoğdu O, Sarı Z, Yurdalan SU. Kinesiophobia in relation to physical activity in chronic neck pain. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2016;29(1):41–47. doi:10.3233/BMR-150594
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  115. 115.↵
    Elfving B, Andersson T, Grooten WJ. Low levels of physical activity in back pain patients are associated with high levels of fear-avoidance beliefs and pain catastrophizing. Physiother Res Int. 2007;12(1):14–24. doi:10.1002/pri.355
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  116. 116.↵
    González de la Flor Á, García Pérez de Sevilla G, Domíngez Balmaseda D, Martín Vera D, Montero Martínez M, Del Blanco Muñiz JÁ. Relationship between self-efficacy and headache impact, anxiety, and physical activity levels in patients with chronic tension-type headache: an observational study. Behav Neurol. 2022;2022:8387249. doi:10.1155/2022/8387249
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  117. 117.↵
    Helmus M, Schiphorst Preuper HR, Hof AL, Geertzen JH, Reneman MF. Psychological factors unrelated to activity level in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Eur J Pain. 2012;16(8):1158–1165. doi:10.1002/j.1532-2149.2011.00109.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. 118.↵
    Huijnen IP, Verbunt JA, Peters ML, Seelen HA. Is physical functioning influenced by activity-related pain prediction and fear of movement in patients with subacute low back pain? Eur J Pain. 2010;14(6):661–666. doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.10.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. 119.↵
    Koho P, Orenius T, Kautiainen H, Haanpää M, Pohjolainen T, Hurri H. Association of fear of movement and leisure-time physical activity among patients with chronic pain. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(9):794–799. doi:10.2340/16501977-0850
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. 120.↵
    Lotzke H, Jakobsson M, Gutke A, et al. Patients with severe low back pain exhibit a low level of physical activity before lumbar fusion surgery: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):365. doi:10.1186/s12891-018-2274-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. 121.↵
    Navarro-Ledesma S, Pruimboom L, Lluch E, Dueñas L, Mena-Del Horno S, Gonzalez-Muñoz A. The relationship between daily physical activity, psychological factors, and vegetative symptoms in women with fibromyalgia: a cross-sectional observational study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(18):11610. doi:10.3390/ijerph191811610
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  122. 122.↵
    Pedler A, Kamper SJ, Maujean A, Sterling M. Investigating the fear avoidance model in people with whiplash: the association between fear of movement and in vivo activity. Clin J Pain. 2018;34(2):130–137. doi:10.1097/AJP.0000000000000524
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  123. 123.↵
    Sertel M, Aydoğan Arslan S, Tütün Yümin E, Demirci CS, Tarsuslu Şimşek T. Investigation of the relationship between physical activity, kinesiophobia and fear of falling in older adults with chronic pain. Somatosens Mot Res. 2021;38(3):241–247. doi:10.1080/08990220.2021.1958774
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  124. 124.↵
    Verbunt JA, Sieben JM, Seelen HA, et al. Decline in physical activity, disability and pain-related fear in sub-acute low back pain. Eur J Pain. 2005;9(4):417–425. doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2004.09.011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  125. 125.↵
    Corrigan P, Cortes DH, Pontiggia L, Silbernagel KG. The degree of tendonitis is related to symptom severity and physical activity levels in patients with midportion Achilles tendinopathy. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2018;13(2):196–207. doi:10.26603/ijspt20180196
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  126. 126.↵
    Glaviano NR, Baellow A, Saliba S. Physical activity levels in individuals with and without patellofemoral pain. Phys Ther Sport. 2017;27:12–16. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2017.07.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  127. 127.↵
    Leonhardt C, Lehr D, Chenot JF, et al. Are fear-avoidance beliefs in low back pain patients a risk factor for low physical activity or vice versa? A cross-lagged panel analysis. Psychosoc Med. 2009;6:Doc01. doi:10.3205/psm000057
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  128. 128.↵
    Pastor-Mira, MA, López-Roig S, Peñacoba C, Sanz-Baños Y, Lledó A, Velasco L. Predicting walking as exercise in women with fibromyalgia from the perspective of the theory of planned behavior. Women Health. 2020;60(4),412–425. doi:10.1080/03630242.2019.1662869
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  129. 129.↵
    Spaderna H, Hoffman JM, Hellwig S, Brandenburg VM. Fear of physical activity, anxiety, and depression: barriers to physical activity in outpatients with heart failure? Eur J Health Psychol. 2020;27(1):3–13. doi:10.1027/2512-8442/a000042
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  130. 130.↵
    Baykal Şahin H, Kalaycıoğlu E, Şahin M. The effect of cardiac rehabilitation on kinesiophobia in patients with coronary artery disease. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2021;67(2):203–210. doi:10.5606/TFTRD.2021.5164
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  131. 131.↵
    Marques-Sule E, Söderlund A, Almenar L, Espí-López GV, López-Vilella R, Bäck M. Influence on kinesiophobia by disability, physical, and behavioural variables after a heart transplantation. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2022;21(6):537–543. doi:10.1093/eurjcn/zvab134
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  132. 132.↵
    Barchek AR, Dlugonski D, Baez SE, Hoch MC, Hoch J. The relationship between injury-related fear and physical activity in people with a history of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Phys Ther Sport. 2021;50:201–205. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2021.05.010
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  133. 133.↵
    Donnarumma P, Presaghi F, Tarantino R, Fragale M, Rullo M, Delfini R. The impact of pelvic balance, physical activity, and fear-avoidance on the outcome after decompression and instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(2):428–433. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4644-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  134. 134.↵
    Norte GE, Solaas H, Saliba SA, Goetschius J, Slater LV, Hart JM. The relationships between kinesiophobia and clinical outcomes after ACL reconstruction differ by self-reported physical activity engagement. Phys Ther Sport. 2019;40:1–9. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.08.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  135. 135.↵
    Olsson N, Karlsson J, Eriksson BI, Brorsson A, Lundberg M, Silbernagel KG. Ability to perform a single heel-rise is significantly related to patient-reported outcome after Achilles tendon rupture. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014;24(1):152–158. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01497.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  136. 136.↵
    Zelle DM, Corpeleijn E, Klaassen G, Schutte E, Navis G, Bakker SJL. Fear of movement and low self-efficacy are important barriers in physical activity after renal transplantation. PLOS One. 2016;11(2):e0147609. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147609
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  137. 137.↵
    Coronado RA, Robinette PE, Henry AL, et al. Bouncing back after lumbar spine surgery: early postoperative resilience is associated with 12-month physical function, pain interference, social participation, and disability. Spine J. 2021;21(1):55–63. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2020.07.013
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  138. 138.↵
    Aykut Selçuk M, Karakoyun A. Is there a relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity level in patients with knee osteoarthritis? Pain Med. 2020;21(12):3458–3469. doi:10.1093/pm/pnaa180
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  139. 139.↵
    Doğan N, Taşci S. Pain, physical activity, and kinesiophobia levels in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study. Turk Klin J Nurs Sci. 2022;14(4):1144–1154. doi:10.5336/nurses.2022-89904
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  140. 140.↵
    Kilinç H, Karahan S, Atilla B, Kinikli Gİ. Can fear of movement, depression and functional performance be a predictor of physical activity level in patients with knee osteoarthritis? Arch Rheumatol. 2019;34(3):274–280. doi:10.5606/ArchRheumatol.2019.7160
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  141. 141.↵
    Özlü A, Akdeniz Leblebicier M. Does remission in rheumatoid arthritis bring kinesiophobia, quality of life, fatigue, and physical activity closer to normal? Arch Rheumatol. 2022;37(4):603–612. doi:10.46497/ArchRheumatol.2022.9552
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  142. 142.↵
    Peres D, Tordi N, Demartino AM, Cheng JL, Sagawa Jr Y, Prati C. Relationships between physical activity levels and disease activity, functional disability and kinesiophobia in chronic rheumatic diseases. Sci Sports. 2023;38(5-6):607–615. doi:10.1016/j.scispo.2022.07.013
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  143. 143.↵
    Smulligan KL, Wingerson MJ, Seehusen CN, Little CC, Wilson JC, Howell DR. More physical activity is correlated with reduction in kinesiophobia for adolescents with persistent symptoms after concussion. J Sport Rehabil. 2022;32(2):196–202. doi:10.1123/jsr.2022-0193
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  144. 144.↵
    Sütçü G, Ayvat E, Kilinç M. Effects of fatigue and kinesiophobia on functional capacity, physical activity and quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. Int J Rehabil Res. 2021;44(1):65–68. doi:10.1097/MRR.0000000000000449
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  145. 145.↵
    Igelström H, Emtner M, Lindberg E, Åsenlöf P. Physical activity and sedentary time in persons with obstructive sleep apnea and overweight enrolled in a randomized controlled trial for enhanced physical activity and healthy eating. Sleep Breath. 2013;17(4):1257–1266. doi:10.1007/s11325-013-0831-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  146. 146.↵
    Ozer AY, Karaca S, Senocak E, Oguz S, Polat MG. Does kinesiophobia limit physical activity and quality of life in asthmatic patients? Int J Rehabil Res. 2022;45(3):230–236. doi:10.1097/MRR.0000000000000534
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  147. 147.↵
    Wang J, Bai C, Zhang Z, Chen O. The relationship between dyspnea-related kinesiophobia and physical activity in people with COPD: cross-sectional survey and mediated moderation analysis. Heart Lung. 2023;59:95–101. doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2023.02.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  148. 148.↵
    Crommert ME, Flink I, Gustavsson C. Predictors of disability attributed to symptoms of increased interrecti distance in women after childbirth: an observational study. Phys Ther. 2021;101(6):pzab064. doi:10.1093/ptj/pzab064
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  149. 149.↵
    Atıcı E, Girgin N, Çevik Saldıran T. The effects of social isolation due to COVID-19 on the fear of movement, falling, and physical activity in older people. Australas J Ageing. 2022;41(3):407–413. doi:10.1111/ajag.1306390
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  150. 150.↵
    Miller L, Ohlman T, Naugle KM. Sensitivity to physical activity predicts daily activity among pain-free older adults. Pain Med. 2018;19(8):1683–1692. doi:10.1093/pm/pnx251
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  151. 151.↵
    Ohlman T, Miller L, Naugle KE, Naugle KM. Physical activity levels predict exercise-induced hypoalgesia in older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50(10):2101–2109. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001661
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  152. 152.↵
    Woby SR, Roach NK, Urmston M, Watson PJ. Psychometric properties of the TSK-11: a shortened version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. Pain. 2005;117(1-2):137–144. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2005.05.029
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  153. 153.↵
    Jørgensen MB, Damsgård E, Holtermann A, Anke A, Søgaard K, Røe C. Properties of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia across workers with different pain experiences and cultural backgrounds: a Rasch analysis. J Appl Meas. 2015;16(2):218–227. http://jampress.org/abst2015.htm
    OpenUrl
  154. 154.↵
    Bäck M, Jansson B, Cider A, Herlitz J, Lundberg M. Validation of a questionnaire to detect kinesiophobia (fear of movement) in patients with coronary artery disease. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(4):363–369. doi:10.2340/16501977-0942
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  155. 155.↵
    Neblett R, Hartzell MM, Mayer TG, Bradford EM, Gatchel RJ. Establishing clinically meaningful severity levels for the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-13). Eur J Pain. 2016;20(5):701–710. doi:10.1002/ejp.795
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  156. 156.↵
    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(2):157–168. doi:10.1016/0304-3959(93)90127-B
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  157. 157.↵
    Knapik A, Saulicz E, Gnat R. Kinesiophobia - introducing a new diagnostic tool. J Hum Kinet. 2011;28:25–31. doi:10.2478/v10078-011-0019-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  158. 158.↵
    Shelby RA, Somers TJ, Keefe FJ, et al. Brief Fear of Movement Scale for osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64(6):862–871. doi:10.1002/acr.21626
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  159. 159.↵
    Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(8):1381–1395. doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FB
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  160. 160.↵
    Baecke JA, Burema J, Frijters JE. A short questionnaire for the measurement of habitual physical activity in epidemiological studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 1982;36(5):936–942. doi:10.1093/ajcn/36.5.936
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  161. 161.↵
    Grimby G, Börjesson M, Jonsdottir IH, Schnohr P, Thelle DS, Saltin B. The "Saltin-Grimby Physical Activity Level Scale" and its application to health research. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25 Suppl 4:119–125. doi:10.1111/sms.12611
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  162. 162.↵
    Godin G, Shephard RJ. A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 1985;10(3):141–146.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  163. 163.↵
    Taylor HL, Jacobs DR Jr, Schucker B, Knudsen J, Leon AS, Debacker G. A questionnaire for the assessment of leisure time physical activities. J Chronic Dis. 1978;31(12):741–755. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(78)90058-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  164. 164.↵
    Voorrips LE, Ravelli AC, Dongelmans PC, Deurenberg P, Van Staveren WA. A physical activity questionnaire for the elderly. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1991;23(8):974–979.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  165. 165.↵
    Wendel-Vos GC, Schuit AJ, Saris WH, Kromhout D. Reproducibility and relative validity of the short questionnaire to assess health-enhancing physical activity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(12):1163–1169. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00220-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  166. 166.↵
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;198:43–49. doi:10.1097/00003086-198509000-00007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  167. 167.↵
    Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13(8):890–895. doi:10.1016/s0883-5403(98)90195-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  168. 168.↵
    Mannerkorpi K, Hernelid C. Leisure time physical activity instrument and Physical Activity at Home and Work instrument. Development, face validity, construct validity and test-retest reliability for subjects with fibromyalgia. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:695–701. doi:10.1080/09638280400009063
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  169. 169.↵
    Armstrong T, Bull F. Development of the World Health Organization Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ). J Pub Health. 2006;14:66–70. doi:10.1007/s10389-006-0024-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  170. 170.↵
    Frey I, Berg A, Grathwohl D, Keul J. Freiburg Questionnaire of physical activity-- development, evaluation and application. Soz Praventivmed. 1999;44(2):55–64. doi:10.1007/BF01667127.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  171. 171.↵
    Jurca R, Jackson AS, LaMonte MJ, et al. Assessing cardiorespiratory fitness without performing exercise testing. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29(3):185–193. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2005.06.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  172. 172.↵
    Topolski TD, LoGerfo J, Patrick DL, Williams B, Walwick J, Patrick MMB. Peer reviewed: the Rapid Assessment of Physical Activity (RAPA) among older adults. Prev Chronic Dis. 2006;3(4):A118.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  173. 173.↵
    Montoye HJ, Kemper HCG, Saris WHM, Washburn RA. Measuring physical activity and energy expenditure. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics. 1996.
  174. 174.↵
    Melzack R, Katz J. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: appraisal and current status. In: Turk DC, Melzack R, eds. Handbook of Pain Assessment. 2nd ed. The Guilford Press; 2001:35–52.
  175. 175.↵
    Ross RLP. Clinical assessment of pain. In: van Dieen JH, ed. Assessment in Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy. WB Saunders; 1997:123–133.
  176. 176.↵
    Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;28(2):88–96. doi:10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  177. 177.↵
    Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994;23(2):129–138.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  178. 178.↵
    Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(8):1010–1014. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  179. 179.↵
    Bush JW, Kaplan RM. The quality of well-being scale (formerly the index of well-being). In: McDowell I, ed. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press; 2006:675–683.
  180. 180.↵
    Ware JE Jr.. SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000;25(24):3130–3139. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  181. 181.↵
    Freyd M. The Graphic Rating Scale. J Educ Psychol. 1923;14:83–102. doi:10.1037/h0074329
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  182. 182.↵
    Burckhardt CS, Clark SR, Bennett RM. The Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire: development and validation. J Rheumatol. 1991;18(5):728–733.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  183. 183.↵
    Melzack R, Torgerson WS. On the language of pain. Anesthesiology. 1971;34(1):50–59. doi:10.1097/00000542-197101000-00017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  184. 184.↵
    Page MJ, Sterne JAC, Higgins JPT, Egger M. Investigating and dealing with publication bias and other reporting biases in meta-analyses of health research: a review. Res Synth Methods. 2021;12(2):248–259. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1468
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  185. 185.↵
    Simonsohn U, Simmons JP, Nelson LD. Better P-curves: making P-curve analysis more robust to errors, fraud, and ambitious P-hacking, a reply to Ulrich and Miller (2015). J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015;144(6):1146–1152. doi:10.1037/xge0000104
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  186. 186.↵
    Coull A, Pugh G. Maintaining physical activity following myocardial infarction: a qualitative study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2021;21(1):105. doi:10.1186/s12872-021-01898-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  187. 187.↵
    Rogerson MC, Murphy BM, Bird S, Morris T. "I don’t have the heart": a qualitative study of barriers to and facilitators of physical activity for people with coronary heart disease and depressive symptoms. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:140. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-9-140
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  188. 188.↵
    Amirova A, Lucas R, Cowie MR, Haddad M. Perceived barriers and enablers influencing physical activity in heart failure: a qualitative one-to-one interview study. PLOS One. 2022;17(8):e0271743. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271743
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  189. 189.↵
    Freeman AT, Hill D, Newell C, et al. Patient perceived barriers to exercise and their clinical associations in difficult asthma. Asthma Res Pract. 2020;6:5. doi:10.1186/s40733-020-00058-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  190. 190.↵
    Ellis T, Boudreau JK, DeAngelis TR, et al. Barriers to exercise in people with Parkinson disease. Phys Ther. 2013;93(5):628–636. doi:10.2522/ptj.20120279
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  191. 191.↵
    Simpson LA, Eng JJ, Tawashy AE. Exercise perceptions among people with stroke: Barriers and facilitators to participation. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2011;18(9):520–530. doi:10.12968/ijtr.2011.18.9.520
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  192. 192.↵
    Ramsey KA, Zhou W, Rojer AGM, Reijnierse EM, Maier AB. Associations of objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behaviour with fall-related outcomes in older adults: A systematic review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2022;65(2):101571. doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2021.101571
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  193. 193.↵
    Gay C, Eschalier B, Levyckyj C, Bonnin A, Coudeyre E. Motivators for and barriers to physical activity in people with knee osteoarthritis: A qualitative study. Joint Bone Spine. 2018;85(4):481–486. doi:10.1016/j.jbspin.2017.07.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  194. 194.↵
    Lööf H, Johansson UB. "A body in transformation"-An empirical phenomenological study about fear-avoidance beliefs towards physical activity among persons experiencing moderate-to-severe rheumatic pain. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28(1-2):321–329. doi:10.1111/jocn.14606
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  195. 195.↵
    Rethman KK, Mansfield C, Moeller J, et al. Kinesiophobia is associated with poor function and modifiable through interventions in people with patellofemoral pain: a systematic review with individual participant data correlation meta-analysis. Phys Ther. 2023;103(9):pzad074. doi:10.1093/ptj/pzad074
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  196. 196.↵
    Prince SA, Adamo KB, Hamel ME, Hardt J, Connor Gorber S, Tremblay M. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5:56. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-56
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  197. 197.↵
    Lundberg M, Styf J, Jansson B. On what patients does the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia fit? Physiother Theory Pract. 2009;25(7):495–506. doi:10.3109/09593980802662160
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  198. 198.↵
    Gabelica M, Bojčić R, Puljak L. Many researchers were not compliant with their published data sharing statement: a mixed-methods study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;150:33–41. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  199. 199.↵
    Lahart IM, Boisgontier MP. Kinesiophobia and physical activity: data and scripts for meta-analysis. [Data set, scripts, supplementary material]. Version 1.2; 2024. doi:10.5281/zenodo.11638244
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  200. 200.↵
    Goubran M, Farajzadeh A, Lahart IM, Bilodeau M, Boisgontier MP. Kinesiophobia and physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Version 4;2024. MedRxiv. doi:10.1101/2023.08.17.23294240
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  201. 201.↵
    Hutchinson J. Evidence of the association between kinesiophobia and physical inactivity. PCI Health Mov Sci. 2024:100039. doi:10.24072/pci.healthmovsci.100039
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  202. 202.↵
    Allen L, O’Connell A, Kiermer V. How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the contributor role taxonomy (CRediT) is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship. Learn Publ. 2019;32(1):71–74. doi:10.1002/leap.1210
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted July 25, 2024.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Kinesiophobia and physical activity: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Miriam Goubran, Ata Farajzadeh, Ian M. Lahart, Martin Bilodeau, Matthieu P. Boisgontier
medRxiv 2023.08.17.23294240; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.17.23294240
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area