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 is known to reduce the risk of disability, disease, and mortality. 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 and what factors influence this relationship.

Methods Three databases were searched for articles 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 Forty-nine articles were included in the systematic review and 41 studies (n = 4,848) in the meta-analysis. Results showed a moderate negative correlation between kinesiophobia and physical activity (r = -0.31; 95% CI: -0.42 to -0.20; I2 = 1.8%; p < 0.0001). Subgroup meta-analyses revealed that the correlation was statistically significant only in patients with a cardiovascular or arthritis condition and in studies using a self-reported measure of physical activity. There was no evidence of an effect of age, gender, or pain.

Conclusions Higher levels of kinesiophobia were moderately associated with lower levels of physical activity. However, between-study heterogeneity was considerable, and results showed no evidence of this association when physical activity was assessed with accelerometers or pedometers. Additional studies using device-based measures of physical activity are required to confirm these results and to understand the factors and mechanisms influencing this potential relationship.

Impact Our results suggest that kinesiophobia could be considered as a limiting factor when developing physical activity promotion strategies for inactive patients.

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.

Several factors may explain physical inactivity11. Environmental, interpersonal, and intrapersonal factors12. Environmental factors include lack of access, weather conditions, and safety concerns13. Interpersonal factors include family responsibilities, lack of support, and lack of a gym partner14. Intrapersonal factors include gender15, age16, cognitive function17,18, and socioeconomic circumstances19. One intrapersonal factor of interest in patients is kinesiophobia20, 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 condition. Kinesiophobia is typically measured using self-administered questionnaires, such as the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK)21,22, 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.

The relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity can be explained within the framework of dual models, which propose that physical activity behavior is governed by two main processes: Controlled and automatic processes23–26. Controlled processes rely on higher brain functions, are deliberative, require cognitive resources, and are developed through conscious thought. Automatic processes, on the other hand, rely on learned associations, are unintentional, require fewer cognitive resources, and do not require conscious thought. Regarding automatic processes, these models propose 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 concept25,26. This activation leads to an impulse that favors the tendency to avoid (or approach) physical activity27. 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.

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 whether this association was influenced by kinesiophobia measures, physical activity measures (i.e., accelerometers, pedometers, questionnaires), physical activity outcome (e.g., total physical activity, moderate or vigorous physical activity, steps per day), health status, age, gender, or pain.

Methods

Search Strategy

This review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines28. Potential studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE (via PubMed), PsychInfo, and CINAHL databases. In October and November 2022, 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” and “physical activity”. Specifically, in PubMed, the search was “physical activity” (MeSH terms) AND “kinesiophobia” (All Fields)”. In PsychInfo and CINAHL, the search was “kinesiophobia” AND “physical activity” in all fields. To reduce literature bias29,30, this systematic review was pre-registered in PROSPERO31.

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. The physical activity measure could be a self-reported measure of the level of physical activity or the use of an accelerometer 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, V̇ O₂ 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.covi-dence.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 four reviewers (MG, AF, MB, 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, as well as statistical estimates and significance of the association between kinesiophobia and physical activity.

Bias Assessment

The risk of bias of the studies included in the systematic review was estimated using the critical appraisal tool for assessing the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS)32. AXIS is a 20-item checklist designed to assess the introduction, methods, results, discussion, conflict of interest, and ethical approval or consent of the included studies.

Meta-Analysis

In our meta-analysis, we pooled Pearson product-moment correlations from eligible studies to examine the relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity. When a study measured physical activity with both a questionnaire and accelerometers, the correlation included in the analysis was that of the most reliable outcome, i.e., the accelerometer-based outcome. Correlations were pooled using the generic inverse pooling method via the ‘metacor’ function in the R ‘meta’ package33. 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.

We anticipated considerable between-study heterogeneity, and therefore used a random-effects model to pool correlations. The restricted maximum likelihood (RML) estimator34 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 error35. 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 adjustment36 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 conventions37 : r ≈ -0.10, small negative correlation; r ≈ -0.30, moderate negative correlation; r ≈ -0.50, large negative correlation. Egger’s regression test of funnel plot asymmetry38 and a p-curve analysis39 were conducted to assess potential publication bias in our meta-analysis. The Rücker’s limit meta-analysis method40, which explicitly includes the heterogeneity variance in the model, was used to compute bias-corrected estimate of the true effect size.

We conducted subgroup analyses 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 vs. self-reported), physical activity measurement instruments (i.e., type of questionnaires, type of devices), physical activity outcomes, and kinesiophobia measures. In addition, we used meta-regressions to examine if the average age of participants or the proportion of women in a study predicted the reported correlation between kinesiophobia and physical activity.

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 device-based physical activity.

A sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine whether the quality of the studies (AXIS score) affected the results.

All analyses were performed in RStudio integrated development environment (IDE) (2023.06.1+524, “Mountain Hydrangea” release) for R software environment41 using the ‘meta’, ‘metafor’, and ‘metasens’ R packages33,40,42,43.

Results

Literature Search

The primary search identified 395 potentially relevant articles from the three databases (Figure 1), including 80 duplicates. Of the 315 articles screened, disagreement occurred in 25 cases (7.9%), all of which were resolved by consensus. All articles remained after step 1 as they were all written in English. Ninety-six articles were excluded in step 2 because they did not report original data. No articles were excluded in step 3 because they all involved human participants. One hundred and thirty-six articles were excluded in step 4 because they did not assess kinesiophobia (k =3) or physical activity (k = 133). Forty-five articles were excluded at step 5 because they did not formally test the association between the kinesiophobia and physical activity. The corresponding authors of these latter articles were contacted by email to request the Pearson correlation value of this association and the sample size used to calculate it or the raw data for the physical activity and kinesiophobia measures. Fifteen authors replied to our email: 3 authors provided their datasets44–46, 5 authors provided the Pearson’s correlation value47–51, 4 authors replied that they would contact their co-authors but did not get back to us. Based on reference screening and forward citation tracking, the authors identified 13 studies that assessed both physical activity and kinesiophobia, but none provided an estimate of their relationship. The corresponding authors of these 13 studies were asked by email to share this estimate or their data. Three of them responded and provided the Pearson’s correlation value52–54. The remaining 10 authors did not respond to our email. In total, data from 49 articles were included in the systematic review. AXIS scores ranged from 14 to 18 out of 20, with a mean of 16.9 + 0.6 (Table 1).

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

Notes. Accelero. = Accelerometer, ACLR = anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, BHPAQ = Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire (3 – 15), BFMSO = Brief Fear of Movement Scale for Osteoarthritis (6 – 24), BPI-S = Brief Pain Inventory-Severity (1 – 10), COPD = Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Corr. = Correlation, CVD = cardiovascular disease, FABQ = Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire (0 – 24), FActS = Fear of Activity in Situations (0 – 30), GLTEQ = Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (0 – 119), GRS = Graphic Rating Scale (0 – 10), IPAQ = short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, KCS = Kinesiophobia Causes Scale (0 – 100), KOOS-P = Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score – Pain (0 – 100), LPA = light physical activity, n.a. = not available, MPA = moderate physical activity, MSK = Musculoskeletal, MVPA = moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, NRS = Numeric Rating Scale (maximum score = 0 – 10), OKS = Oxford Knee Score – Pain, PA = Physical Activity, PASE = Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, Pedo. = Pedometer, r = Pearson’s correlation coefficient, ρ = Spearman’s correlation coefficient, SF-36 = 36-Item Short Form Survey (0 – 100), QWBS-P = Quality of Well-Being Scale-Pain, SGPALS = Saltin-Grimby Physical Activity Level Scale (1 – 4), SpA = axial spondyloarthritis, TAS = Tegner Activity Scale (0 – 10), TOAQ = Tecumseh Occupational Activity Questionnaire, TSK = Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia [TSK-17: 17 – 68, TSK-Heart = 17 – 68, TSK-14 = 14 – 56, TSK-13 = 13 – 52, TSK-11 = 11 – 44), UCLA = University of California Los Angeles activity score (1 – 10), VAS = Visual Analog Scale (0 – 10), VPA = vigorous physical activity, VRS = Verbal Rating Scale for pain assessment (0 – 5), † was obtained by email from authors, ††Number of participants used to calculare the correlation, according to the email sent by the authors.

Descriptive Results

Participants

The 49 articles identified by the systematic review included a total of 6,084 participants aged 11 to 85 years, including 2,655 women, 1,967 men, and 1,462 participants whose gender and sex was not reported. The studies investigated populations with pain (k = 2044,46,49,55–71), cardiovascular (k = 652,53,72–75, surgery (k = 645,75–79), arthritis (k = 651,80–84), neurological (k = 285,86), pulmonary (k = 287,88), and cancer (k = 150) conditions, as well as healthy adults (k = 6 47,48,54,89–91 (Table 1).

Kinesiophobia

In 44 of the 49 studies, kinesiophobia was assessed using the 17-item TSK (k = 30)44,47–49,51,54–58,61–65,68,70,77,79–81,83–88,90,92, shorter versions of the TSK [TSK-1193, k = 845,60,66,67,71,75,78,91; TSK-14, k = 150; TSK-1394, k = 259,76], or its adaptation for patients with coronary artery disease [TSK-Heart95, k = 252,72]. 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 condition22. 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 kinesiophobia21. On the TSK-13, scores inferior to 23 are considered sub-clinical96. The other measures that were used are the Kinesiophobia Causes Scale97 (KCS; k = 254,89), the Fear of Activities in Situations scale74 (FActS; k = 174), the Brief Fear of Movement Scale for Osteoarthritis98 (BFMSO; k = 151), and the Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire99 (FABQ; k = 153).

Forty-three 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 45.0), chronic pain (30.5 to 44.4), or a pulmonary condition (39.6 to 42). Levels of kinesiophobia were lower in participants with a neurological (36.0 to 39.8) or surgical condition (32.9) and in healthy adults (18.9 to 39.0). Forty-three 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 45.0), chronic pain (30.5 to 44.4), or a pulmonary condition (39.6 to 42). Levels of kinesiophobia were lower in participants with a neurological (36.0 to 39.8) or surgical condition (32.9) and in healthy adults (18.9 to 39.0).

Physical Activity

Thirty-four 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) (k = 1348,49,56,58,60,72,73,75,77,81–83,87, 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 days100. Other questionnaires were used to assess physical activity, such as the Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire101 (BHPAQ; k = 546,54,57,65,85), the Saltin-Grimby Physical Activity Level Scale102 (SGPALS; k = 453,59,70,92), the Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire103 (GLTEQ; k = 266,79), the Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire104 (MLTPAQ; k = 178), the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly105 (PASE; k = 268,89), the Physical Activity Questionnaire for the Elderly106 (PAQE; k = 147), the Short Questionnaire to Assess Health Enhancing Questionnaires107 (SQUASH; k = 188), the Tegner Assessment Scale108 (TAS; k = 145), and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score109 (k = 180).

Physical activity was also assessed with devices such as accelerometers measuring accelerations in 3 dimensions (k = 1550,51,55,57,61,62,64,67,69,74,76, 84,86,90,91) and pedometers measuring the number of steps (k = 345,71,88) (Table 1). In most studies, the device was worn at the hip (k = 945,57,61,69,74,76,84,90,91).

Other positions included trunk (k = 262,67), arm (k = 250,86), wrist (k = 155), and thigh (k = 151), with three studies not reporting where the device was worn64,71,88. Most studies that employed accelerometer-based measures used the ActiGraph (Actigraph, LLC, Pensacola, FL, USA) GT3X+ (k = 464,76,90,91) or wGT3X-BT (k = 184). The other accelerometers were the RT3 (Stayhealthy Inc., Monrovia, CA, USA; k = 361,62,69), the SenseWear Pro3 Armband (BodyMedia, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; k = 250,86), the Activity Sensory Move II (movisens GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany; k = 174), the LifeShirt (Vivometrics, Inc., Ventura, CA, USA; k = 167), and the ActiWatch (Mini Mitter Co., Inc., Bend, OR, USA; k = 155). The type of accelerometer was not reported in one study57. The pedometers were the Digi-Walker SW-200 (New Lifestyles Inc., Lees Summit, MO, USA; k = 245,88) and the Active Style Pro HJA-350IT (Omron Heathcare, Kyoto, Japan; k = 171).

To assess physical activity, the studies used the following outcomes: Score from a questionnaire (e.g., TAS, PAQE, BHPAQ, SGPALS, LTPAQ; k = 1845–47,52–54,57,59,63,65,66,70,78–80,85,89,92), METmin/week (k = 1348,49,56,58,72,73,75,78,81–83,87,88), steps per day (k = 745,51,57,71,86,88,90), hours per day or week (k =644,50,57,64,83,84), counts per minute (k = 455,57,61,76), kilocalories per day (k = 274,86), or percentage of active time (k = 167). Five studies used multiple physical activity outcomes45,57,84,86,88.

Association Between Physical Activity and Kinesiophobia

Thirty-two of the 49 articles reported a correlation estimate of the association between physical activity and kinesiophobia. Twenty-three articles reported a correlation estimate of the association between physical activity and kinesiophobia. Twenty-three articles reported at least one Pearson’s r estimate, eight reported at least one Spearman’s rho estimate, and one reported a Cohen’s d. Eleven additional Pearson’s r values were obtained by email from the authors44–54, for a total of 34 articles including 41 Pearson’s r estimates that were used in the meta-analysis (Table 1).

Pain

Mean pain intensity at rest was reported in 28 out of the 49 articles included in the systematic review. Most studies used the Visual Analog Scale110 (VAS; k = 1156,61,63–65,67,69,81,83,85) or the Numeric Rating Scale111 (NRS; k = 844,48,51,55,57,60,71,76).

Other studies used the Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale112 (KOOS-P; k = 345,79,80), Brief Pain Inventory 113 (k = 146), Oxford Knee Score114 (OKS; k = 182), the Quality of Well-Being Scale – Self-administered Pain Scale115 (QWBS-P; k = 190), the Short Form 36 bodily pain116 (SF-36; k = 173), the Graphic Rating Scale117 (GRS; k = 177), and the Verbal Rating Scale118 (VRS; k = 153). 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 meta-analysis of 41 studies (n = 4,848) revealed a statistically significant moderate negative correlation between kinesiophobia and physical activity (r = -0.31; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: -0.42 to -0.20; p < 0.0001; Table 2; Figure 2). However, we observed considerable between-study statistical heterogeneity (Tau2 = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.22; I2 = 91.8%, 95% CI: 89.9 to 93.5%), and the prediction interval ranged from r = -0.78 to 0.37, indicating that a moderate positive correlation cannot be ruled out for future studies.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Main meta-analysis: Correlation between kinesiophobia and physical activity (k = 41, n = 4,848).

Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.1204; ChI2 = 490.59, df = 40 (P < 0.01); I2 = 92%

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

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

Notes. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval, BHPAQ = Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire, Cor. = Correlation estimate, FABQ= Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire, FActS = Fear of Activity in Situations, GLTEQ = Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire, IPAQ = short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, k = number of studies, KCS = Kinesiophobia Causes Scale, MLTPAQ = Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire, n = number of participants, p = p-value for between-group difference, PAQE = Physical Activity Questionnaire for the Elderly, PASE = Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, SGPALS = Saltin-Grimby Physical Activity Level Scale, TSK = Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, UCLA = University of California Los Angeles activity score.

Publication Bias Assessment

Egger’s regression test showed that the data in the funnel plot was asymmetric (b = -2.85, 95% CI: -5.55 to -0.14, p = 0.046; Figure 3), which may be explained by publication bias, but also by other potential causes, such as different study procedures and between-study heterogeneity119, which was considerable here. The bias-corrected estimate of the true effect size, calculated using Rücker’s limit meta-analysis method, showed that the correlation would remain significant if there was publication bias (r = -0.18; 95% CI: -0.34 to -0.01; p = 0.0378). A total of 41 studies were provided to the p-curve analysis, including 21 (51.2%) studies with p < 0.05 and 18 studies (43.9%) with p < 0.025 (Figure 4). The p-value of the right-skewness test was < 0.0001 for both the half and full curve, suggesting that evidential value was present120.

Figure 4.
Figure 4. P-curve analysis
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Contour-enhanced funnel plot of the main meta-analysis

Subgroup Meta-Analyses

The test of subgroup differences between health status measures was possible between studies comprising people with chronic pain (k = 11), cardiovascular condition (k = 11), arthritis (k = 6), and neurological conditions (k = 2), people who had received surgery (k = 4), and older adults (k = 3) (Table 4; Figure 5). We found statistical differences between these studies (p < 0.0001). The relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity was statistically significant only in studies that included participants with cardiovascular disease (r = -0.47; 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.32) and arthritis (r = -0.42; 95% CI: -0.69 to -0.05). The effect of arthritis remained significant when focusing on osteoarthritis (k = 5; r = -0.48; 95% CI: -0.76 to -0.35). Statistical heterogeneity was higher in the studies comprising people with arthritis (I2 = 92.7%) than the studies comprising people with cardiovascular disease (I2 = 83.9%).

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Subgroup meta-analysis: Differences according to health status.

The test of subgroup differences between self-reported (k = 32) and device-based (k = 9) measures of physical activity showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.0001; Table 4), with only the self-reported measures showing a correlation (r = -0.36; 95% CI: -0.48 to -0.24; Figure 6).

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Subgroup meta-analysis: Differences according to physical activity measure (self-report vs. device).

However, we observed considerable between-study statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 92.9%). Results of the secondary meta-analysis based on Spearman rho values (k = 5, n = 361) were consistent with this subgroup analysis as they showed no statistical evidence of an association between kinesiophobia and accelerometer-based measures of physical activity (r = -0.10; 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.09; I2 = 30.2%; p = 0.217; Table 4; Figure 7).

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Secondary meta-analysis based on Spearman’s rho value of studies using accelerometer-based physical activity.

The test of subgroup differences according to physical activity measurement instruments was possible between studies using the IPAQ (k = 18), BHPAQ (k = 3), MLTPAQ (k = 2), GLTEQ (k = 2), as well as accelerometers (k = 8) and pedometers (k = 2). We found statistical differences between these studies (p = 0.014). The relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity was statistically significant only in studies that used the IPAQ (r = -0.43; 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.26; Table 4; Figure 8). However, we observed considerable between-study statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 89.7%).

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Subgroup meta-analysis: Differences according to physical activity measurement instruments.

Notes: 95% CI = 95% confidence interval, BFMSO = Brief Fear of Movement Scale for Osteoarthritis, FABQ = Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire, FActS = Fear of Activity in Situations, IV = Inverse-variance method, KCS = Kinesiophobia Causes Scale, PA = physical activity, Random = Random-effects method, TSK = Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia

Figure 9.
Figure 9. Subgroup meta-analysis: Differences according to physical activity outcome.

The test of subgroup differences between physical activity outcomes was possible between studies using MET-min/week, typically from the IPAQ (k = 19), a score from a questionnaire (k = 11), steps/day (k = 4), counts/min (k = 3), and active time in hours per day or week (k = 3) (Table 4; Figure 9). We observed statistical differences between these studies (p < 0.0001), with only the studies using the MET-min/week (r = -0.42; 95% CI: -0.56 to -0.26) and score outcome (r = -0.33; 95% CI: -0.56 to -0.06) showing a statistical correlation. Heterogeneity was considerable in studies relying on these outcomes (I2 = 90.1 and 95.1%).

The test of subgroup differences between kinesiophobia measures was possible only for TSK-17 (k = 21), TSK-Heart (k = 8), and TSK-11 (k = 6) (Table 4; Figure 10), with only the former two showing a statistical correlation. The correlation was stronger in studies using the TSK-Heart (r = -0.59; 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.36) than with the TSK-17 (r = -0.28; 95% CI: -0.43 to -0.11). Heterogeneity was lower, albeit substantial to considerable in the studies using TSK-Heart (I2 = 85.0%) than TSK-17 (I2 = 92.6%).

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Subgroup meta-analysis: Differences according to kinesiophobia measure.

Meta-Regressions

Age did not statistically influence the correlation values of the meta-analysis studies (k = 31; p = 0.263) (Figure 11A). Due to the similar I2 between this meta-regression and the main meta-analysis (92.6% vs. 91.8%, respectively), the addition of age as a predictor did not explain the considerable heterogeneity observed between study correlations. The R2 revealed that only 1.0% of the differences between study correlations could be explained by age. Similarly, the proportion of women (k = 33; Figure 11B) and the mean level of pain in the studies (k = 23; Figure 11C) did not influence correlation values. The R2 revealed that these variables explained less than 0.01% of the differences between study correlations.

Figure 11.
Figure 11. Meta-Regressions testing the influence of age (k = 31) (A), the proportion of women (k = 33) (B), and pain intensity (k = 23) (C) on the correlation estimates of the meta-analysis studies.

Sensitivity Analysis

The meta-regression by AXIS score (k = 41) showed that a study’s quality did not influence correlation values. The R2 revealed that this variable explained less than 0.01% of the differences between study correlations. However, it should be noted that there was very little variation in axis scores with all scores ranging between 16 and 18.

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. To our knowledge, this is the first review of its kind on this emerging research topic.

Patients with Arthritis, Cardiovascular, and Pulmonary conditions

The meta-analysis (k = 41, n = 4,848) showed a moderate negative correlation between kinesiophobia and physical activity. This result is consistent with our hypothesis and the dual models of physical activity23,24,26. According to the theoretical models, this main result suggests 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.

Our results suggest that patients with cardiovascular or arthritic conditions may be at greater risk for this negative relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity than those with other conditions, such as chronic pain. This latter 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 also reflects fear of injury and fear of worsening a health condition. Although our results showed no evidence of an association between kinesiophobia and physical activity in other health conditions such as cancer, acute pain, post-surgery, neurological and pulmonary conditions, 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 studies (k = 1 to 5). Of note, only one study examined the relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity in people with a pulmonary condition (i.e., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD), but this study was the one that reported the highest correlation (r = -0.89; 95% CI: -0.93 to -0.82), suggesting that this population should also be closely monitored for kinesiophobia.

No Evidence Based on Objective Measures of Physical Activity

Importantly, the results showed that the negative association between kinesiophobia and physical activity was statistically significant in studies using self-report measures (e.g., IPAQ), but not in studies using device-based measures (i.e., accelerometers or pedometers). This difference persisted in analyses that further disaggregated the physical activity measures (i.e., specifying the types of questionnaires and devices) and tested the effect of the different outcomes. The secondary analysis based on Spearman’s rho values further supported these results as it provided no evidence suggesting an association between kinesiophobia and devicebased measures of physical activity, albeit in a small number of studies. Because device-based measures of physical activity are more valid and reliable than self-reported measures, these findings call into question the robustness of the relationship between kinesiophobia and physical activity. Therefore, additional studies relying on device-based measures are required to confirm the negative associations we observed between kinesiophobia and physical activity we observed in people with a cardiovascular, arthritis, or pulmonary condition, which were mainly based on self-reported measures.

Pain vs. Fear

Contrary to our expectations, we found no statistical evidence showing that the level of actual pain intensity at rest influenced the effect of kinesiophobia on physical activity, despite the substantial number of studies included in this analysis (k = 23). This result is consistent with the weak relationship that has been shown between kinesiophobia and pain121, 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, our results also suggest that the effect of pain may be better assessed by pain history (e.g., pain duration in months) or pain intensity during exercise. The absence of significant effects in the group of studies based on shorter versions of the TSK suggests that the items removed from these versions may be important to accurately assess kinesiophobia.

Kinesiophobia Measure

Studies using the TSK-17 or the TSK-Heart to assess kinesiophobia both showed a statistically significant relationship with physical activity. This consistency is not surprising as these two measures are very similar. They differ only in specific vocabulary that makes the TSK-Heart specific to individuals with a cardiac condition (e.g., “heart problem” instead of “pain” and “injury”) and the TSK-17 more broadly applicable to different populations. In addition, the stronger correlation observed in studies using the TSK-Heart compared with the TSK-17 is consistent with our results showing stronger correlations in studies of people with a cardiovascular condition.

Limitations and Strengths

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis should be considered in light of several limitations. Some of our results showed considerable heterogeneity, 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 (10 different questionnaires, 8 different accelerometers and pedometers), and the physical activity outcomes (n = 9), but also by the type of questionnaires used to assess kinesiophobia (n = 9). 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 activity122. Only articles published in English were included. Inclusion of articles published in other languages may have influenced the results. Only 11 of the 58 authors we contacted (19 %) shared their estimates or data with us, which is more than reported in previous literature123. Including these missing data may have had an impact on the results. However, these limitations are counterbalanced by several strengths including the preregistration of our work, a substantial number of studies in the meta-analysis, as well as the assessment and correction for publication bias.

Conclusions

Higher levels of kinesiophobia were moderately associated with lower levels of physical activity, especially in people with a cardiovascular, arthritis, and pulmonary condition, and when selfreported physical activity was used. 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, there was considerable heterogeneity between studies, and the lack of evidence based on objective measures of physical activity calls for cautious conclusions about this potential relationship. In sum, our results suggest that kinesiophobic patients have only a moderate, if any, risk of being more physically inactive than other patients. Therefore, more evidence is required to determine the impact kinesiophobia should have on therapeutic decisions when aiming to reduce physical inactivity11. Further studies using device-based measures of physical activity are needed to confirm our findings and to understand the factors and mechanisms that influence the potential 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.8216112. 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.8216112

Article Information

Data and Code Availability

According to good research practices30, the dataset, R Markdown script, and supplemental material are freely available in Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8216112124

Authorship Contribution Statement

Based on the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)125,126 individual author contributions to this work are as follows:

  • Miriam Goubran: Conceptualization; Methodology (Systematic Review); Investigation; Writing – Original Draft; Writing – Review and Editing.

  • Ata Farajzadeh: Investigation; 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 – Original Draft; Writing – Review and Editing; Supervision; Project Administration.

  • Matthieu P. Boisgontier: Conceptualization (Lead); Methodology; Investigation; Formal Analysis; Data Curation; Visualization; Writing – Original Draft (Lead); Writing – Review and Editing; Supervision; Project Administration; Funding Acquisition.

Funding

Matthieu P. Boisgontier is supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC; RGPIN-2021-03153), the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Mitacs, and the Banting Research Foundation. Ata Farajzadeh is supported by an Admission Scholarship, a Doctoral International Scholarship, and a Special Merit Scholarship from the University of Ottawa, and by a BMO Graduate Scholarship.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

The other authors declare that they have no financial conflict of interest related to the content of this article. Matthieu P. Boisgontier is the founder, representative, and manager of Peer Community In (PCI) Health & Movement Sciences (https://healthmovsci.peercommunityin.org/about), a free and transparent peer review service provided by a community of researchers who review and recommend preprints. He is a former co-chair and current member of the Society for Transparency, Openness, and Replication in Kinesiology (STORK; https://storkinesiology.org), current editor-in-chief for Communications in Kinesiology (https://storkjournals.org/index.php/cik), and associate editor for the European Rehabilitation Journal (https://rehab-journal.com), both of which are Diamond Open Access journals publishing articles in the field of health and rehabilitation sciences.

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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11556-022-00291-3
    OpenUrl
  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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30358-3
    OpenUrl
  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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1548
    OpenUrl
  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. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000007021
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    World Health Organization. Physical activity - Key facts. October 5, 2022. Accessed August 3, 2023. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity
  11. 11.↵
    Boisgontier MP, Iversen MD. Physical inactivity: a behavioral disorder in the physical therapist’s scope of practice. Phys Ther. 2020;100(5):743–746. http://doi.org/10.1093/PTJ/PZAA011
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    O’Donoghue G, Perchoux C, Mensah K, et al. A systematic review of correlates of sedentary behaviour in adults aged 18-65 years: a socioecological approach. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2841-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14385-1
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2022.2147261
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-006-5062-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200009000-00013
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.05.029
  18. 18.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000857
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001472
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Kori SH, Miller RP, Todd DD. Kinesiophobia: a new view of chronic pain behavior. Pain Manag. 1990;3:35–43.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(94)00279-N
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.↵
    Miller R, Kori S, Todd D. The Tampa Scale: a measure of kinisiophobia. Clin J Pain. 1991;7(1):51–52.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Brand R, Ekkekakis P. Affective–Reflective Theory of physical inactivity and exercise. Ger J Exerc Sport Res. 2018;48:48–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-017-0477-9
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    Conroy DE, Berry TR. Automatic affective evaluations of physical activity. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2017;45(4):230–237. http://doi.org/10.1249/JES.0000000000000120
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Cheval B, Boisgontier MP. Promouvoir une activité physique régulière chez les patients : l’importance de la perception de l’effort. Staps. 2023.
  26. 26.↵
    Cheval B, Boisgontier MP. The theory of effort minimization in physical activity. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2021;49(3):168–178. https://doi.org/10.1249/JES.0000000000000252
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Farajzadeh A, Goubran M, Beehler A, et al. Relationship between age and physical and sedentary stimuli. Peer Community J. 2023;3:e21. https://doi.org/10.24072/pcjournal.246
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01227-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Boisgontier MP. Research integrity requires to be aware of good and questionable research practices. Eur Rehabil J. 2021;2(1):1–3. https://doi.org/10.52057/erj.v2i1.24
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Goubran M, Boisgontier M, Bilodeau M. Kinesiophobia and physical activity: a systematic review. PROSPERO (CRD42022364063) [preregistration]; October 17, 2022. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022364063
  32. 32.↵
    Downes MJ, Brennan ML, Williams HC, Dean RS. Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open. 2016;6:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    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
  34. 34.↵
    Viechtbauer W. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Educ Behav Stat. 2005;30(3):261–293. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986030003261
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  35. 35.↵
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    Knapp G, Hartung J. Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. Stat Med. 2003;22(17):2693–2710. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1482
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed.; 1988.
  38. 38.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
  39. 39.↵
    Simonsohn U, Nelson LD, Simmons JP. P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014;143(2):534–547. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0033242
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Schwarzer G, Carpenter RJ, Rücker G. metasens: advanced statistical methods to model and adjust for bias in meta-analysis [R package]. Version 1.5-2; 2023. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/metasens/metasens.pdf
  41. 41.↵
    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
  42. 42.↵
    Viechtbauer W. metafor: meta-analysis package for R [R package]. Version 4.2-0; 2023. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/metafor/metafor.pd f
  43. 43.↵
    Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2019.06.019
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05696-9
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203329
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2014.948806
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.31609/jpmrs.2021-81527
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2019.10.190
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. 50.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06576-0
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03305-2
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S216196
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.433
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.5114/pm.2016.61193
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2011.07.017
    OpenUrlPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-150653
    OpenUrlPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.09.115
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. 58.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-150594
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1002/pri.355
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8387249
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1532-2149.2011.00109.x
    OpenUrlPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.10.014
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0850
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2274-5
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2020.1830323
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811610
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000000524
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1080/08990220.2021.1958774
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2004.09.011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.26603/ijspt20180196
    OpenUrl
  71. 71.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2020.1855685
    OpenUrl
  72. 72.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.26444/aaem/106143
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.5606/TFTRD.2021.5164
    OpenUrl
  74. 74.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000042
    OpenUrl
  75. 75.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvab134
    OpenUrl
  76. 76.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.07.013
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. 77.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4644-8
    OpenUrl
  78. 78.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147609
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.08.002
    OpenUrl
  80. 80.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1002/jor.2515181
    OpenUrl
  81. 81.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2021.105275
    OpenUrl
  82. 82.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.5606/ArchRheumatol.2019.7160
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnaa180
    OpenUrl
  84. 84.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1080/14397595.2021.1891676
    OpenUrl
  85. 85.↵
    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 (Kaunas). 2022;58(3):414. http://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58030414
    OpenUrl
  86. 86.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000449
    OpenUrl
  87. 87.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000534
    OpenUrl
  88. 88.↵
    Bossenbroek L, ten Hacken NH, van der Bij W, Verschuuren EA, Koëter GH, de Greef MH. Cross-sectional assessment of daily physical activity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease lung transplant patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28(2):149–155. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2008.11.905
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  89. 89.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.1306390
    OpenUrl
  90. 90.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnx251
    OpenUrl
  91. 91.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001661
    OpenUrl
  92. 92.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01497.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.
    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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2005.05.029
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  94. 94.↵
    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
  95. 95.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0942
    OpenUrlPubMed
  96. 96.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.795
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  97. 97.↵
    Knapik A, Saulicz E, Gnat R. Kinesiophobia - introducing a new diagnostic tool. J Hum Kinet. 2011;28:25–31. http://doi.org/10.2478/v10078-011-0019-8
    OpenUrlPubMed
  98. 98.↵
    Shelby RA, Somers TJ, Keefe FJ, et al. Brief Fear of Movement Scale for osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012;64(6):862–871. http://doi.org/10.1002/acr.21626
    OpenUrl
  99. 99.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(93)90127-B
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  100. 100.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.6 1453.FB
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  101. 101.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/36.5.936
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  102. 102.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12611
    OpenUrlPubMed
  103. 103.↵
    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
  104. 104.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(78)90058-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  105. 106.↵
    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.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  106. 107.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00220-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  107. 108.↵
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;198:43–49. http://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198509000-00007
    OpenUrlPubMed
  108. 109.↵
    Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13(8):890–895. http://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-5403(98)90195-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  109. 110.
    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.
  110. 111.
    Ross RLP. Clinical assessment of pain. In: van Dieen JH, ed. Assessment in Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy. WB Saunders; 1997:123–133.
  111. 112.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  112. 113.↵
    Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994;23(2):129–138.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  113. 114.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. 115.↵
    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.
  115. 116.↵
    Ware JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3130-3139. http://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008
    OpenUrl
  116. 117.↵
    Freyd M. The Graphic Rating Scale. J Educ Psychol. 1923;14:83–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074329
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  117. 118.↵
    Melzack R, Torgerson WS. On the language of pain. Anesthesiology. 1971;34(1):50–59. http://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-197101000-00017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  118. 119.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1468
    OpenUrl
  119. 120.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000104
    OpenUrl
  120. 121.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzad074
  121. 122.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-5-56
  122. 123.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.019
    OpenUrlPubMed
  123. 124.
    Goubran M, Farajzadeh A, Lahart IM, Bilodeau M, Boigontier MP. Kinesiophobia and physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis [Data set, Rmd script, supplementary material]. Version 1.0; 2023. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8216112
  124. 125.↵
    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. http://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1210
    OpenUrl
  125. 126.↵
    Brand A, Allen L, Altman M, Hlava M, Scott J. Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learn Publ. 2015;28(2):151–155. http://doi.org/10.1087/20150211
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted August 20, 2023.
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