@article{KuehnePaunovWeck2021,
  author    = {K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Paunov, Tatjana and Weck, Florian},
  title     = {Recognizing obsessive-compulsive disorder},
  series = {BMC psychiatry},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {BMC psychiatry},
  publisher = {Springer Nature},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1471-244X},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12888-021-03458-x},
  pages     = {7},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background Despite the prevalence of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), its precise identification remains challenging. With the Zohar-Fineberg Obsessive-Compulsive Screen (ZF-OCS; 5 or 6 items), a brief instrument is widely available mainly in English. As there is a lack of empirical studies on the ZF-OCS, the aim of the present study was to translate the items into German and investigate the instrument in a nonclinical sample. Methods In two consecutive online surveys, n = 304 and n = 51 students participated. Besides the ZF-OCS, they answered established measures on OCD, depression, health anxiety, general anxiety and health-related well-being. Results Whereas internal consistency was low (α = .53-.72; ω = .55-.69), retest reliability (rt1,t2 = .89) at two weeks was high. As expected, we found high correlations with other OCD instruments (r > .61; convergent validity), and significantly weaker correlations with measures of depression (r = .39), health anxiety (r = .29), and health-related well-being (r = -.28, divergent validity). Nonetheless, the correlations with general anxiety were somewhere in between (r = .52). Conclusions Due to heterogeneous OCD subtypes, the ZF-OCS asks diverse questions which probably resulted in the present internal consistency. Nevertheless, the results on retest reliability and validity were promising. As for other OCD instruments, divergent validity regarding general anxiety seems problematic to establish. Even so, the ZF-OCS seems valuable for screening purposes, as it is short and easy to administer, and may facilitate initiating subsequent clinical assessment. Further studies should determine the instrument's diagnostic accuracy.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{HasenbringLevenigHallneretal.2018,
  author    = {Hasenbring, Monika Ilona and Levenig, Claudia and Hallner, D. and Puschmann, Anne-Katrin and Weiffen, A. and Kleinert, Jens and Belz, J. and Schiltenwolf, Marcus and Pfeifer, A. -C. and Heidari, Jahan and Kellmann, M. and Wippert, Pia-Maria},
  title     = {Psychosocial risk factors for chronic back pain in the general population and in competitive sports},
  series = {Der Schmerz : Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft zum Studium des Schmerzes, der {\"O}sterreichischen Schmerzgesellschaft und der Deutschen Interdisziplin{\"a}ren Vereinigung f{\"u}r Schmerztherapie},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {Der Schmerz : Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft zum Studium des Schmerzes, der {\"O}sterreichischen Schmerzgesellschaft und der Deutschen Interdisziplin{\"a}ren Vereinigung f{\"u}r Schmerztherapie},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Heidelberg},
  issn      = {0932-433X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00482-018-0307-5},
  pages     = {259 -- 273},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Lumbar back pain and the high risk of chronic complaints is not only an important health concern in the general population but also in high performance athletes. In contrast to non-athletes, there is a lack of research into psychosocial risk factors in athletes. Moreover, the development of psychosocial screening questionnaires that would be qualified to detect athletes with a high risk of chronicity is in the early stages. The purpose of this review is to give an overview of research into psychosocial risk factors in both populations and to evaluate the performance of screening instruments in non-athletes. The databases MEDLINE, PubMed, and PsycINFO were searched from March to June 2016 using the keywords "psychosocial screening", "low back pain", "sciatica" and "prognosis", "athletes". We included prospective studies conducted in patients with low back pain with and without radiation to the legs, aged ae<yen>18 years and a follow-up of at least 3 months. We identified 16 eligible studies, all of them conducted in samples of non-athletes. Among the most frequently published screening questionnaires, the A-rebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (A-MPSQ) demonstrated a sufficient early prediction of return to work and the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) revealed acceptable performance predicting pain-related impairment. The prediction of future pain was sufficient with the Risk Analysis of Back Pain Chronification (RISC-BP) and the Heidelberg Short Questionnaire (HKF). Psychosocial risk factors of chronic back pain, such as chronic stress, depressive mood, and maladaptive pain processing are becoming increasingly more recognized in competitive sports. Screening instruments that have been shown to be predictive in the general population are currently being tested for suitability in the German MiSpEx research consortium.},
  language  = {en}
}