Prevalence and Risk Factors for Low Back Pain in Primiparous Women Visiting Maternity Hospitals During Different Months of Pregnancy

Abstract

Objectives: Pregnancy is one of the pleasant periods of a woman’s life that turns into a bitter experience by common complications such as low back pain (LBP). Due to prevailing climatic conditions in Iran and the harmful social norms concerning Iranian women, the present study aimed to investigate the prevalence of pregnancy-related LBP and its influencing factors during different months of pregnancy. Materials and Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in 2019 on 550 pregnant women for LBP who were eligible based on the inclusion criteria. The research instruments were a demographic questionnaire, a LBP examination, and the visual analog scale (VAS). The obtained data were analyzed using the chi-square test, the independent t test, and multiple logistic regression in SPSS 20, and a P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The prevalence of LBP was 67.27%, and the most important factors influencing pregnancy-related LBP were maternal age (OR=950, P<0.008), gestational age (OR=1.023, P=0.015), body mass index (OR=802, P=0.045), duration of sitting (OR=1.812, P=0.036), and the duration of standing (OR=1.625, P=0.042). Conclusions: Overall, there was a high prevalence of pregnancy-related LBP in primiparous women in the present study and its predisposing risk factors included advanced maternal age, obesity, and low level of ability to sit and stand for a long time.

Prevalence of lumbopelvic pain during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of cross‐sectional studies

“…After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 1232 records were screened. Finally, 111 full‐text articles were assessed for eligibility, among which, 38 studies 5 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 were included in the meta‐analysis. A flow diagram of the study selection process is shown in Figure 1 .…”

“…Of these included studies, 12 studies 17 , 19 , 21 , 25 , 27 , 31 , 32 , 37 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 51 were from Asia (Malaysia, Iran, Pakistan, India, Kuwait, Nepal and China), 15 studies 18 , 22 , 28 , 29 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 40 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 52 from Europe (Turkey, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, UK and Norway), six studies 20 , 23 , 24 , 34 , 41 , 45 from Africa (Malawi, Nigeria and Ethiopia), four studies 5 , 30 , 44 , 53 from North America (USA), one study 26 from South America (Brazil) and two studies 46 , 50 from Oceania (Australia). The present study is was a multicenter cross‐sectional study of four countries, USA, UK, Norway and Sweden.…”

“…After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 1232 records were screened. Finally, 111 full‐text articles were assessed for eligibility, among which, 38 studies 5,17–53 were included in the meta‐analysis. A flow diagram of the study selection process is shown in Figure 1.…”