Relationship Between Fear of Movement and Physical Activity in Patients With Cardiac, Rheumatologic, Neurologic, Pulmonary, or Pain Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Miriam Goubran, Ata Farajzadeh, Ian M Lahart and 2 others
PMID 40188486WHAT IT FOUND
The more people feared movement, the less physically active they were, but the link was weak and varied a lot between studies.
It held for people with lung, neurological, heart or arthritic conditions and older adults, but not for chronic pain.
Key findings
01Pooling 83 correlations from 63 studies and 12,278 people, higher fear of movement went with lower physical activity. The correlation was small: r = −0.19, where 0 means no relationship at all (95% CI −0.26 to −0.13).
02The relationship was present in studies of people with a cardiac (r = −0.30), arthritic (r = −0.25), neurologic (r = −0.53) or pulmonary (r = −0.68) condition and in older adults (r = −0.40), but there was no evidence of an association in chronic pain (r = −0.07) or acute pain (r = −0.13). Health condition changed the size of the relationship.
03Study results disagreed substantially with each other (I² = 85.5%), and the range of results expected from future studies runs from r = −0.605 to 0.300, so a positive association cannot be ruled out. The funnel plot was asymmetrical (Egger test P = .0095), which the authors say may reflect publication bias or differences between studies.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The pooled relationship is small (r = −0.19), so fear of movement explains only a modest part of why people are inactive; many other factors are at work. The studies disagreed with each other a great deal (I² = 85.5%). The authors state that the range of results expected in future studies runs from −0.605 to 0.300, so a positive association cannot be ruled out. The funnel plot was asymmetrical (Egger test P = .0095), which the authors say may indicate publication bias, though they also attribute it to differences in study procedures and the large heterogeneity. Their own conclusion asks for caution about the relationship. Only 21 of the 98 authors contacted (21%) shared their estimates or raw data, so a substantial amount of relevant data is missing and could have changed the results. Fear of movement was measured with several different questionnaires (mainly different versions of the Tampa Scale and the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire) and physical activity with many different questionnaires and devices, worn in different places and for different lengths of time. Fear of movement is a changing state, and the authors note that the time gap and context between the fear-of-movement assessment and the activity assessment may have influenced the results. Several conditions (cancer, surgery, postpartum, obstructive sleep apnea, fibromyalgia) rested on only one to five estimates; the authors say the lack of a significant finding there may simply reflect too few studies, so no association cannot be ruled out in those groups. All the included studies tested whether fear of movement and activity go together, not whether changing one changes the other, and the authors state that more evidence, particularly prospective studies, is needed before this affects therapeutic decisions.
Declared interests
The work was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). The authors state that the funders had no role in data collection, management, analysis or interpretation, in writing the report, or in the decision to submit it. The text supplied names no other conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that reducing a patient's fear of movement will make them more active. The included studies measured fear of movement and physical activity together rather than following people forward, so they show the two go hand in hand, not that one causes the other, and the authors themselves say more evidence is needed before this should shape therapeutic decisions.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →