Table Info

Table 4.

Evaluation of the Delphi DOLBaPP questionnaire by the participants

Variables	n	Proportion (%)
Time to complete the questionnaire
Less than 5 minutes	73	89.0
Around 5 to 10 minutes	8	9.8
Around 10 to 15 minutes	0	0.0
More than 15 minutes	1	1.2
The subject of the questionnaire is interesting.
Strongly agree	70	85.4
More or less agree	12	14.6
Strongly disagree	0	0.0
The length of the questionnaire is appropriate.
Strongly agree	65	79.3
More or less agree	14	17.1
Strongly disagree	0	0.0
Missing data	3	3.7
The wording of the questions is easy to understand.
Strongly agree	65	79.3
More or less agree	17	20.7
Strongly disagree	0	0.0
The illustration accompanying question 1 is easy to understand.
Strongly agree	79	96.3
More or less agree	3	3.7
Strongly disagree	0	0.0
The structure of the questionnaire is clear and appropriate.
Strongly agree	66	80.5
More or less agree	13	15.9
Strongly disagree	2	2.4
Missing data	1	1.2

Supplementary materials

The supplementary material for this article is available at: https://www.explorationpub.com/uploads/Article/file/100165_sup_1.pdf.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Chantal Brisson for making it possible to conduct this study within the cohort study known as The PROspective Quebec (PROQ) Study on Work and Health. We also thank Dr. Manon Lévesque for coordinating the data collection and pre-test of the Delphi DOLBaPP questionnaire, for her availability to facilitate access to the data and for responding to our numerous requests, and finally we thank all the assistants who participated in the project.

Author contributions

CED initiated the study, SP coordinated the study, specifically the translation process and AL contributed to analyzing the data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All the authors discussed core ideas, participated in interpretation of data, and contributed to the writing of the final paper. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This project was approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the CHU de Quebec-Université Laval under the project number “2012-1674, DR-002-1409”.

Consent to participate

Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Data are available upon request to the corresponding author. The Delphi DOLBaPP definitions, questionnaires and cultural adaptations are available at http://backpaindefs.org.

Funding

Funding sources: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) through funding of the PROspective Quebec (PROQ) Study on Work and Health (principal investigator: Dr Chantal Brisson). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright

References

Walker BF. The prevalence of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature from 1966 to 1998. J Spinal Disord. 2000;13:205–17. [DOI] [PubMed]

Bell JA, Burnett A. Exercise for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of low back pain in the workplace: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19:8–24. [DOI] [PubMed]

Loney PL, Stratford PW. The prevalence of low back pain in adults: a methodological review of the literature. Phys Ther. 1999;79:384–96. [DOI] [PubMed]

Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, March L, Brooks P, Blyth F, et al. A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2012;64:2028–37. [DOI] [PubMed]

Maher C, Underwood M, Buchbinder R. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 2017;389:736–47. [DOI]

Scott NA, Moga C, Harstall C. Managing low back pain in the primary care setting: the know-do gap. Pain Res Manag. 2010;15:392–400. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Edwards J, Hayden J, Asbridge M, Gregoire B, Magee K. Prevalence of low back pain in emergency settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18:143. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Leboeuf-Yde C, Lauritsen JM. The prevalence of low back pain in the literature. A structured review of 26 Nordic studies from 1954 to 1993. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20:2112–8. [DOI] [PubMed]

Dionne CE, Dunn KM, Croft PR. Does back pain prevalence really decrease with increasing age? A systematic review. Age ageing. 2006;35:229–34. [DOI] [PubMed]

10.

Dionne CE, Dunn KM, Croft PR, Nachemson AL, Buchbinder R, Walker BF, et al. A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:95–103. [DOI] [PubMed]

11.

Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32:1008–15. [DOI] [PubMed]

12.

Powell C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs. 2003;41:376–82. [DOI] [PubMed]

13.

Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Boston: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company; 1975.

14.

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3186–91. [DOI] [PubMed]

15.

CUESTIONARIO DELPHI DOLBaPP (versión española-España) [Internet]. Kovacs FM, Gestoso M, Mufraggi N, Martín M, Carretero D, Ferrer M, et al. 2010 [cited 2021 Nov 23]. Available from: https://www.backpaindefs.org/PDF/Page_OptimalQ_Model_3_Spa.pdf

16.

Leonhardt M, Liebers F, Dionne CE, Latza U. Cross-cultural adaptation of the delphi definitions of low back pain prevalence (German DOLBaPP). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:397. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

17.

Hilton A, Skrutkowski M. Translating instruments into other languages: development and testing processes. Cancer Nurs. 2002;25:1–7. [DOI] [PubMed]

18.

Duffy ME. Translating instruments into other languages: basic considerations. Clin Nurse Spec. 2006;20:225–6. [DOI] [PubMed]

19.

Vallerand RJ. Vers une méthode de validation trans-culturelle des questionnaires psychologiques: implications pour la recherche en langue française. Psychologie Canadienne. 1989;30:662–80. [DOI]

20.

Trudel X, Gilbert-Ouimet M, Milot A, Duchaine CS, Vezina M, Laurin D, et al. Cohort profile: The PROspective Quebec (PROQ) study on work and health. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47:693-i. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

21.

Miles M, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994.

22.

Rivelsrud MC, Kirmess M, Hartelius L. Cultural adaptation and validation of the Norwegian version of the swallowing quality of life questionnaire (SWAL-QOL). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17:179. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

23.

Girard MP, Marchand AA, Stuge B, Ruchat SM, Descarreaux M. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire for the French-Canadian population. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2016;39:494–9. [DOI] [PubMed]

24.

Parent-Vachon M, Parnell LKS, Rachelska G, Lasalle L, Nedelec B. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Questionnaire for Pruritus Assessment for use in the French Canadian burn survivor population. Burns. 2008;34:71–92. [DOI] [PubMed]

25.

Denis I, Fortin L. Development of a French-Canadian version of the Oswestry Disability Index: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Spine. 2012;37:E439–44. [DOI] [PubMed]

26.

Mak S, Soicher JE, Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Bourbeau J. Cross-cultural adaptation of the CHAMPS Questionnaire in French Canadians with COPD. Can Respir J. 2016;2016:9304505. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

27.

Janwantanakul P, Pensri P, Moolkay P, Jiamjarasrangsi W. Development of a risk score for low back pain in office workers - a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:23. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

28.

Damanhuri Z, Zulkifli A, Lau ACT, Zainuddin H. Low back pain among office workers in a public university in Malaysia. Int J Public Health Clin Sci. 2014;1:99–108.