- Journal List
- J Taibah Univ Med Sci
- v.13(2); 2018 Apr
- PMC6695047
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2018 Apr; 13(2): 205–209.
Published online 2017 Jul 24. doi:10.1016/j.jtumed.2017.06.005
PMCID: PMC6695047
PMID: 31435325
Azhar Amyra Natasha,a Aidy Ahmad Syukri,a Mohd Kamaruddin Siti Nor Diana, PhD,a Soelaiman Ima-Nirwana, PhD,b and Kok-Yong Chin, PhDb,∗
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
Abstract
Background
Individuals aged 30–60 years have a high possibility of experiencing low back pain. However, children and adolescents are not exempted from this problem. This study aimed to determine the relationship between backpack usage and the frequency of low back pain in pre-university students.
Methods
A total of 101 currently enrolled pre-university students were recruited for this cross-sectional study. They answered a questionnaire about their demographic details and their frequency of backpack usage. Their backpacks were weighed for four consecutive school days. The Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire and Body Discomfort Chart were used to rate discomfort levels.
Results
The use and weight of a backpack were not significantly associated with low back pain, as indicated by the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire and Body Discomfort Chart (p>0.05).
Conclusion
This study did not find an association between the use of a backpack and low back pain in Malaysian pre-university students.
Keywords: Bone, Mechanical loading, Pain, Teenager, Vertebrae
Introduction
Low back pain is a communal problem defined as pain located between the lower ribs and the buttock folds.1, 2 It is an important contributor to disability globally, and children are no exception. A study has shown that the prevalence of low back pain among children and teenagers varies between 11% and 52.1%.3 Low back pain is a significant health problem because it predisposes youths to musculoskeletal problems in the later stages of their lives.
The use of a backpack is the most important factor causing low back pain among students. The weight of backpacks has increased significantly due to the necessity of carrying academic materials.4 The occurrence of low back pain is associated with a backpack weight greater than 15% of total body mass and a prolonged period of carrying the bag.3, 5, 6 The type of backpack also influences low back pain among students. The two-strap backpack is the most ergonomic design.7 One-strapped and hand-held bags may cause stress and strain on the back muscles due to an imbalanced load distribution between the shoulders.8 Roller-bags also contribute to low back pain due to improper posture changes during their use.9 Carrying a backpack on one shoulder instead of both shoulders also increases the risk of low back pain due to postural deviation.10, 11, 12 Similarly, asymmetrical carriage contributes to low back pain as well.13
Apart from backpacks, other factors such as body mass index (BMI), sex and physical activity status also contribute to low back pain. Non-ideal BMI, either underweight or overweight, is a predictor of low back pain.14, 15, 16 Most studies indicate that female students have a greater tendency to experience low back pain than their male counterparts.3, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 This may due to a higher tendency for females to carry heavier backpacks, as well as physical and physiological sex differences.15, 17, 18, 19 Individuals with inappropriate sitting positions and a sedentary lifestyle have low back muscle endurance.19 Inversely, exercise and vigorous activity can strengthen the back muscles, thus lowering the risk for low back pain.18
There are limited studies on backpack load and low back pain amongst Malaysian youths because most studies involved school children.17 We attempted to bridge this research gap by examining the effects of backpack use and related risk factors on low back pain in a group of pre-university students in Malaysia. The main reasons for selecting these individuals were the paucity of data on low back pain among Malaysians youths, the hom*ogeneity of this group in term of age, and the convenience of sampling.
Materials and Methods
Subjects
A cross-sectional study was performed on 101 (49 male, 52 female) students attending a bridging programme designed to prepare high-school graduates to enter university (pre-university) in a Malaysian higher learning institution. The age range of the students was 16–18 years, with a median age of 18 years. Recruitment was performed from 5th December 2016 to 9th December 2016. Universal sampling of all the pre-university students of the institution was conducted. The students were briefed on the details of this study, and informed written consent was obtained. The included subjects were physically healthy and had no major deformities. They could walk and carry loads on their own. Those with severe orthopaedic problems or who were ill during the study were excluded.
Ethical considerations
The protocol was reviewed and approved by the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Research Ethics Committee (Code Number: UKM PPI/111/8/JEP-2016-599). All subjects were informed of the details of this study, and their queries were answered. Individual consent was obtained before the participation. Consent from parents/guardians was obtained for subjects younger than 18 years.
Measurement
The Virgo Analog Weighing Scale (Model 9811b, Virgo, Maharashtra, India) was used in this study to measure the weight of the students without their backpack load, students with their backpack load, and students with their backpack load and an additional load such as hand bags, water bottles or lunch boxes. These weight measurements were repeated for four days, and the average was used in the final analysis. The height of students was measured using a stadiometer. Body mass index was calculated as per convention.
A self-administered questionnaire was used to obtain general information on demographic details (age and gender), physical activity and backpack usage, including the type of schoolbag used, the method of carriage, and any discomfort experienced due to schoolbag carriage. The Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire, which is freely accessible online (permission not required for use) (http://www.rmdq.org/), was used to assess low back pain among the subjects. This questionnaire has been used in previous studies to investigate the relationship between backpack weight and low back pain.20 The daily report of body discomfort was recorded by the subjects at the end of each school day using a numerical Daily Pain Intensity Scale for four days.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, USA). The normality of the data was assessed using a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Most data were not normally distributed, so a non-parametric analysis approach was used. Comparisons of backpack weight and the scores from the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Daily Pain Intensity Scale between sexes, types of backpack, method of carriage and history of low back pain were conducted using Mann–Whitney U tests. The associations between variables of interest were analysed using the Spearman correlation test. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Data are presented as the median [interquartile range (IQR)].
Results
A total of 101 (42 male and 59 female) subjects participated in this study. The age range of the subjects was 16–18 years (median=18; IQR=1 year). Most of the students were 18 years old (86.1%), followed by 17 years old (12.9%). Only one subject was 16 years old. Most students had a normal BMI (72.9%). More than half of the subjects were physically active (59.4%) (Table1).
Table1
Characteristics of the subjects.
| Variable of interest | N | Median | Interquartile range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 101 | 18.00 | 1.00 |
| Body weight (kg) | 101 | 55.00 | 17.05 |
| Height (cm) | 101 | 161.00 | 12.30 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 101 | 21.38 | 4.92 |
| Backpack weight (kg) | 101 | 3.50 | 1.86 |
| Percentage weight of backpack per body weight (%) | 101 | 5.87 | 3.48 |
| Score of Daily Pain Intensity | 101 | 0.75 | 1.50 |
| Score of Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire | 101 | 3.00 | 5.00 |
| N | % | ||
| Sex | Male | 42 | 41.6 |
| Female | 59 | 58.4 | |
| Pain experience | Yes | 39 | 38.6 |
| No | 62 | 61.4 | |
| Family history | Yes | 63 | 62.4 |
| No | 38 | 37.6 | |
| Physical activeness | Yes | 41 | 40.6 |
| No | 60 | 59.4 | |
| Type of bag | One-strapped | 13 | 12.9 |
| Two-strapped | 88 | 87.1 | |
| Method of carriage | One-shouldered | 22 | 21.8 |
| Two-shouldered | 79 | 78.2 | |
Open in a separate window
The median backpack weight carried by students was 3.50kg (IQR=1.86kg; range=0–11.00kg), while the median backpack weight/body weight percentage was 5.87% (IQR=3.48%) Male students carried heavier bags (median=3.63kg, IQR=2.41kg) than female students (median=3.25kg, IQR=1.38kg). The median percentage backpack weight per body mass over four days was 5.87% (IQR=3.48%; range=0.00–13.46%). Female students carried higher median percentage mass (6.19%, IQR=2.97) than male students (5.42%, IQR=3.58%). Eighty-seven per cent of the subjects carried a two-strapped bag using both shoulders. More female students (10.9%) favoured one strapped bags than males (2.0%).
A total of 61.4% of the subjects indicated that they had a history of low back pain. This pain occurred more frequently in females (36.6%) than males (24.8%). Most subjects (62.4%) indicated that none of their family members suffered from low back pain.
Most of the subjects scored from 1 to 6 (56.4%) on the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire, followed next by 0 (23.7%), and then from 7 to 14 (19.9%). No subjects scored above 14. The Daily Pain Intensity score of the subjects ranged from 0 to 10, with a median score of 0.75 (IQR=1.50) (Table1). Physically active subjects had a significantly higher low back pain score assessed by the Roland–Morris Questionnaire than the sedentary subjects (p<0.05). Other categorizations of subjects did not produce a significant difference in low back pain scores (p>0.05) (Table2).
Table2
Comparison between low back pain score between subjects with different characteristics.
| Low back pain score | Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire | Daily Pain Intensity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Category | Median | IQR | p | Median | IQR | p |
| Sex | Male | 2.500 | 4.000 | 0.555 | 0.750 | 1.750 | 0.664 |
| Female | 3.000 | 6.000 | 0.750 | 1.500 | |||
| Previous experience of low back pain | Yes | 3.000 | 4.000 | 0.152 | 0.875 | 1.750 | 0.118 |
| No | 2.000 | 6.000 | 0.500 | 1.250 | |||
| Family history of low back pain | Yes | 3.000 | 6.000 | 0.114 | 0.750 | 1.630 | 0.832 |
| No | 2.000 | 4.000 | 0.750 | 1.500 | |||
| Physical activity | Active | 3.000 | 6.000 | 0.036 | 0.750 | 1.690 | 0.978 |
| Sedentary | 2.000 | 5.000 | 0.750 | 1.380 | |||
| Type of backpack | Two-strapped | 2.000 | 4.000 | 0.355 | 0.750 | 1.440 | 0.992 |
| One-strapped | 3.000 | 5.000 | 0.500 | 2.380 | |||
| Method of carriage | Two-shouldered | 3.000 | 4.000 | 0.772 | 0.750 | 1.250 | 0.601 |
| One-shouldered | 3.000 | 5.000 | 0.750 | 2.060 | |||
Open in a separate window
Bold represents statistically significant p-value < 0.05.
There were no significant correlations between the Daily Pain Intensity and any of the risk factors, including the weight of backpack (p>0.05). Only physical activity was positively correlated with scores on the Roland–Morris Questionnaire (rs=0.209 p=0.036), where subjects who claimed to be physically active had a higher degree of low back pain. No significant correlations were observed between scores on the Roland–Morris Questionnaire and theother risk factors (p<0.05). Of note, body weight (rs=0.188; p=0.060) and BMI (rs=0.168; p=0.094) weremarginally not significantly associated with back pain score (Table3).
Table3
Spearman correlation results between low back pain score and risk factors of interest.
| Low back pain assessment | Daily Pain Intensity | Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk factor | rs | p | rs | p |
| Backpack weight | 0.013 | 0.901 | −0.131 | 0.192 |
| Percentage weight of backpack per body weight (%) | −0.042 | 0.675 | −0.194 | 0.052 |
| Type of backpack (reference=one-strapped) | 0.001 | 0.992 | −0.093 | 0.357 |
| Method of carrying backpack (reference=one-shouldered) | −0.052 | 0.603 | 0.029 | 0.773 |
| Age | 0.077 | 0.444 | 0.046 | 0.645 |
| Sex (reference=female) | 0.043 | 0.666 | −0.059 | 0.557 |
| Body weight | 0.098 | 0.331 | 0.188 | 0.060 |
| Height | −0.057 | 0.573 | 0.063 | 0.530 |
| Body mass index | 0.163 | 0.104 | 0.168 | 0.094 |
| Previous history of low back pain (reference=no) | 0.156 | 0.118 | 0.143 | 0.153 |
| Family history of low back pain (reference=no) | 0.021 | 0.833 | 0.158 | 0.115 |
| Physical activity (reference=sedentary) | 0.003 | 0.978 | 0.209 | 0.036 |
Open in a separate window
Bold represents statistically significant p-value < 0.05.
Discussion
Our study shows that backpack weight is not significantly correlated with low back pain score and Daily Pain Intensity. These results contradict other reports.21 The backpack weight of our subjects was lighter (median backpack weight/body weight percentage=5.86%) than in other studies.6, 16, 22, 23 This is because the pre-university students in this study carried less study materials in their bags than the primary or high school students in other studies. They also had comparatively fewer school subjects and hours per day. In addition, as mentioned by Papadopoulou etal. (2014), the duration of carrying a backpack was a more important determinant of low back pain,3 but this factor was not examined in our study.
In this study, sex has no significant association with low back pain based on the Daily Pain Intensity Scale and the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire. This did not agree with most previous studies, which showed a higher prevalence of low back pain among female students than among male students.16, 24 These studies postulated that females have less muscle mass and strength than males and thus are more prone to strain-induced muscle pain. It was reasoned that the students recruited in this study generally carried lighter bags, thus bearing less strain on their back muscle.
The type of backpack and the method of carrying had no significant associations with low back pain assessed by both scales. These results were again different from previous studies, which showed that carrying a one-shouldered bag caused more low back pain than wearing a two-shouldered bag.9, 11, 12, 13, 23 In a study by Hong etal. (2011), the spinal posture deviates greatly when loading of the bag increased.25 We suggest that the lighter backpack load (median 3.5kg) relative to body mass (median 55.0kg) weakens these associations in this study.
A significant association between subjects who claimed to be physically active and low back pain as assessed by the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire was observed in this study. This could be a secondary association due to muscle injury sustained from strenuous exercise. This is similar to the findings of Yao etal. (2012), who found that regular sports tend to cause low back pain among students.26 However, other studies showed that physically active individuals tend to experience less low back pain than sedentary ones.3, 13, 27, 28 It was postulated that physical activity could strengthen the back muscles to carry an extra load. We did not study the type and intensity of physical activity. Therefore, the positive correlation between physical activity and low back pain was not conclusive, and further studies are needed to validate this relationship. We also did not perform physical examination and estimation of muscle mass in our subjects. Thus, we cannot investigate which factors (i.e., muscle strength or muscle injury) play a more important role in determining low back pain in our subjects.
Previous studies demonstrated that subjects with a higherBMI had a higher degree of low back pain.27, 28, 29 This was probably due to the extra loading exerted on the musculoskeletal system in individuals with a large body size. In our study, body weight and BMI were positively associated with low back pain despite not being statistically significant. We suggest that a larger sample size would enhance the power of the association.
This study is not without its limitations. This was a cross-sectional study, where causality between risk factors of interest and low back pain cannot be inferred directly. This is a single-centre study, which prevents the generalization of the results. We also realized that the subjects in this study carried lighter backpacks in relation to their body weight (median percentage of backpack weight/body weight=5.87%). In comparison, previous study indicated that a backpack/body weight percentage of more than 15% predisposed subjects to low back pain.6 Thus, subjects in this study have a lower risk of suffering from low back pain induced by backpack usage. A case control study might better highlight the differences between subjects with and without low back pain. We did not calculate sample size for this pilot study, so some of the statistical analysis might be underpowered. However, this study provides a reference for future studies in terms of effect size. In the future, we propose to expand the study to increase the sample size and adopt a longitudinal design to better decipher the relationship between low back pain and its various risk factors among youths.
Conclusion
The use of backpacks among Malaysian pre-university students is not associated with low back pain, according to this study. However, these observations should be validated by a more comprehensive study in the future.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Authors' contribution
ANA and ASA recruited the subjects, performed the study, analysed the data and drafted the manuscript. SNDMK, INS and CKY supervised the projects and provided critical review of the manuscript. INS and CKY provided final approval for the manuscript. CKY revised the manuscript.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for funding this study via fundamental research grant FF-2016-439 and FF-2017-013.
Footnotes
Peer review under responsibility of Taibah University.
References
1. Hoy D., Brooks P., Blyth F., Buchbinder R. The epidemiology of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(6):769–781. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Natour J., Cazotti Lde A., Ribeiro L.H., Baptista A.S., Jones A. Pilates improves pain, function and quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2015;29(1):59–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Papadopoulou D., Malliou P., Kofotolis N., Emmanouilidou M.I., Kellis E. The association between grade, gender, physical activity, and back pain among children carrying schoolbags. 2013;4(1) [Google Scholar]
4. Sharan D., Ajeesh P.S., Jose J.A., Debnath S., Manjula M. Back pack injuries in Indian school children: risk factors and clinical presentations. Work. 2012;41(Suppl.1):929–932. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Brackley H.M., Stevenson J.M. Are children's backpack weight limits enough? A critical review of the relevant literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29(19):2184–2190. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Usman G., Agha S.F.A. Effects of heavy bags, plus desks and postural variations association with lower back pain in school going children. Gomal Univ J Res Phys Ther Sci. 2014;35(1):76–83. [Google Scholar]
7. Afzal N., Asim H., Dilshad H. Frequency of low back pain due to heavy bags among school-going children in Lahore, Pakistan. Int J Sci Res. 2015;4(4):2013–2015. [Google Scholar]
8. Bettany-Saltikov J., Cole L. The effect of frontpacks, shoulder bags and handheld bags on 3D back shape and posture in young university students: an ISIS2 study. Stud Health Technol Inf. 2012;176:117–121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Ibrahim A.H. Incidence of back pain in Egyptian school girls: effect of school bag weight and carrying way. WASJ. 2012;17(11):1526–1534. [Google Scholar]
10. Drzal-Grabiec J., Snela S., Rachwal M., Podgorska J., Rykala J. Effects of carrying a backpack in an asymmetrical manner on the asymmetries of the trunk and parameters defining lateral flexion of the spine. Hum Factors. 2015;57(2):218–226. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Talbott N.R., Bhattacharya A., Davis K.G., Shukla R., Levin L. School backpacks: it's more than just a weight problem. Work. 2009;34(4):481–494. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Ibrahim A.A., Jayavel A., Suleiman S.K., Nuhu J.M. Influence of schoolbag use on musculoskeletal discomforts among university students. IJHSR. 2015;5(5):222–231. [Google Scholar]
13. Noll M., Candotti C.T., Rosa B.N., Loss J.F. Back pain prevalence and associated factors in children and adolescents: an epidemiological population study. Rev Saude Publica. 2016;50 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Dockrell S., Kane C., O'keefe E. Schoolbag weight and the effectsof schoolbag carriage on secondary school students. Ergonomics. 2006;9:216–222. [Google Scholar]
15. Kellis E., Emmanouilidou M. The effects of age and gender on the weight and use of schoolbags. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2010;22(1):17–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Rodriguez-Oviedo P., Ruano-Ravina A., Perez-Rios M., Garcia F.B., Gomez-Fernandez D., Fernandez-Alonso A. School children's backpacks, back pain and back pathologies. Arch Dis Child. 2012;97(8):730–732. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Mohd Azuan K., Zailina H., Shamsul B.M.T., Nurul Asyiqin M.A., Mohd Azhar M.N.S. Neck, upper back and lower back pain and associated risk factors among primary school children. JAppl Sci. 2010;10(5):431–435. [Google Scholar]
18. Hayden J.A., van Tulder M.W., Malmivaara A., Koes B.W. Exercise therapy for treatment of non-specific low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(3) [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Smith A.J., O'Sullivan P.B., Campbell A., Straker L. The relationship between back muscle endurance and physical, lifestyle, and psychological factors in adolescents. JOrthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40(8):517–523. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Pellise F., Balague F., Rajmil L., Cedraschi C., Aguirre M., Fontecha C.G. Prevalence of low back pain and its effect on health-related quality of life in adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(1):65–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Silva Júnior WRd, Cavalcanti A.L. Prevalence of pain and its association with transportation of school supplies in university students. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum. 2014;16:680–688. [Google Scholar]
22. Kistner F., Fiebert I., Roach K., Moore J. Postural compensations and subjective complaints due to backpack loads and wear time in schoolchildren. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2013;25(1):15–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Yoon J.G. Correlations between muscle activities and strap length and types of school bag during walking. JPhys Ther Sci. 2014;26(12):1937–1939. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Wirth B., Knecht C., Humphreys K. Spine Day 2012: spinal pain in Swiss school children-epidemiology and risk factors. BMC Pediatr. 2013;13:159. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Hong Y., Fong D.T., Li J.X. The effect of school bag design and load on spinal posture during stair use by children. Ergonomics. 2011;54(12):1207–1213. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Yao W., Luo C., Ai F., Chen Q. Risk factors for nonspecific low-back pain in Chinese adolescents: a case-control study. Pain Med. 2012;13(5):658–664. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Lionel A. Risk factors for chronic low back pain. JCommunity Med Health Educ. 2013;4(2):2–5. [Google Scholar]
28. Shiri R., Solovieva S., Husgafvel-Pursiainen K., Telama R., Yang X., Viikari J. The role of obesity and physical activity in non-specific and radiating low back pain: the Young Finns study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2013;42(6):640–650. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Nilsen T.I., Holtermann A., Mork P.J. Physical exercise, body mass index, and risk of chronic pain in the low back and neck/shoulders: longitudinal data from the Nord-Trondelag Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174(3):267–273. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences are provided here courtesy of Taibah University
Insights, advice, suggestions, feedback and comments from experts
As an expert in the field of medical research and scientific literature, I have extensive experience in analyzing and interpreting research articles, including those related to the field of medicine and health sciences. I am familiar with the process of conducting studies, collecting and analyzing data, as well as the interpretation of results and conclusions. Furthermore, I am well-versed in the concepts and terminology used in medical research, allowing me to provide comprehensive insights and explanations on a wide range of topics in this field.
Concepts in the Research Article "Relationship between Backpack Usage and Low Back Pain in Pre-University Students"
Low Back Pain
- Defined as pain located between the lower ribs and the buttock folds, and is a significant contributor to disability globally.
Backpack Usage and Weight
- The study aimed to determine the relationship between backpack usage and the frequency of low back pain in pre-university students.
- The weight of backpacks is a significant factor causing low back pain among students, and the weight of backpacks has increased significantly due to the necessity of carrying academic materials.
Factors Affecting Low Back Pain
- Backpack weight greater than 15% of total body mass and prolonged carrying period are associated with low back pain.
- The type of backpack, method of carriage, and posture changes during backpack usage also influence low back pain.
- Other factors such as body mass index (BMI), sex, and physical activity status contribute to low back pain.
Study Methodology
- A total of 101 currently enrolled pre-university students were recruited for this cross-sectional study.
- The students answered a questionnaire about their demographic details and their frequency of backpack usage, and their backpacks were weighed for four consecutive school days.
- The Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire and Body Discomfort Chart were used to rate discomfort levels.
Study Findings
- The study did not find a significant association between the use of a backpack and low back pain in Malaysian pre-university students.
- Backpack weight was not significantly correlated with low back pain scores, and sex, type of backpack, and method of carrying backpack also showed no significant associations with low back pain.
Conclusion and Limitations
- The use of backpacks among Malaysian pre-university students was not associated with low back pain according to the study findings.
- The study acknowledges limitations, such as being a single-center study and the need for a larger sample size and longitudinal design to better understand the relationship between low back pain and its various risk factors among youths.
This research article provides valuable insights into the factors contributing to low back pain in pre-university students and the relationship between backpack usage and low back pain. It also highlights the need for further research to validate the findings and address the limitations of the study.
