Some studies have demonstrated that physiotherapists have a high prevalence of low back pain (LBP). The association between physiotherapy students, who are potentially exposed to the same LBP occupational risks as graduates, and LBP has never been demonstrated. The objective of the study is to evaluate the association between undergraduate physiotherapy study and LBP. The study design includes a cross-sectional study. A questionnairebased study was carried out with physiotherapy and medical students. LBP was measured as lifetime, 1-year and point prevalence. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to find the factors associated with LBP. Bivariate analyses were also performed to assess differences between LBP characteristics in the two courses. 77.9% of the students had LBP at some point in their lives, 66.8% in the last year and 14.4% of them reported they were suffering from LBP at the moment of answering the questionnaire. Physiotherapy students reported a higher prevalence of LBP when compared with the medical students in all measures. In the logistic regression model, physiotherapy students (A-OR 2.51; 95% CI 1.35-4.67; p = 0.003), and being exposed to the undergraduate study for more than four semesters (A-OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.43-4.55; p = 0.001) were independently associated with LBP. There were no differences between the courses concerning pain intensity and disability. As it was a crosssectional study, we were not able to observe accurately if there is an increasing incidence of LBP during the course. Also, we did not intend to identify which activities in the course were associated with the development of LBP. This study clearly demonstrated an association between undergraduate physiotherapy study and LBP. The length of course exposure is also associated with LBP.

BACKGROUND: The original structure of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) has been contested in several languages. OBJECTIVE: To assess the structural validity of the Brazilian version of WOMAC among patients with knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Structural validity study conducted at physiotherapy clinics and primary healthcare units. METHODS: The study included males and females aged 40 to 80 years who were all native Brazilian Portuguese speakers, with knee pain in the previous six months and a diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis. We used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with implementation of a polychoric matrix and the robust diagonally weighted least squares (RDWLS) extraction method. The adequacy of the model was assessed using the following fit indices: root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and chi-square/degree of freedom (DF). RESULTS: 203 patients with knee osteoarthritis were included. The model proposed in this study with two factors, i.e. “pain” (items 1, 2, 3 and 4) and “physical function” (items 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 22), showed adequate fit indices in CFA: chi-square/DF = 1.30; CFI = 0.976; TLI = 0.970; RMSEA = 0.039; and SRMR = 0.070. The factorial loads ranged from 0.68 to 0.76 for the “pain” domain and 0.44 to 0.62 for the “physical function” domain. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian version of WOMAC with two domains, i.e. “pain” (four items) and “physical function” (eight items), presents the best structure.

Study Design. Cross-sectional study. Objective. The aim of this study was to assess the structural validity of the Brazilian version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in patients with chronic neck pain. Summary of Background Data. NDI is widely used in clinical and scientific contexts, although its structure has not been evaluated in the Brazilian version. Methods. Native Brazilian Portuguese speakers, aged ≥18 years, with neck pain complaint of at least 3 months, and minimal pain rating of 3 points at rest or during neck movements were included. Exploratory factorial analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA) were used. In EFA, the adequacy of the model was assessed using Bartlett test of sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test. In CFA, the goodness-of-fit was assessed by the indices: root mean square error of approximation with 90% of confidence interval, comparative fit index, Tucker-Lewis Index, standardized root mean square residual, and χ2/degree of freedom. Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were considered to compare the models. Results. Two hundred fifty-four participants with chronic neck pain were included. The NDI model with one domain and five items presented the most adequate goodness-of-fit indexes and the lowest values of AIC and BIC, when compared with models with one domain and 10, eight, or seven items, and with the model with two domains and 10 items. Conclusion. In the Brazilian context, the NDI version with one domain and five items (personal care, concentration, work, driving, and recreation) presents the best structure according to the factorial analysis. Level of Evidence: 5

No abstract