Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (37)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lau, E. M. C.
Right arrow Articles by Wong, K. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lau, E. M. C.
Right arrow Articles by Wong, K. C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1996 Faculty of Public Health Medicine of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom

research-article

The prevalence of and risk factors for neck pain in Hong Kong Chinese


E. M. C. Lau
, Associate Professor
A. Sham
, Research Assistant
K. C. Wong
, Medical Student

Department of Community and Family Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong


Address correspondence to Dr E. M. C. Lau, at Department of Community Medicine, The Chinese University, 4th Floor, Lek Yuen Health Centre, Shatin, Hong Kong

BACKGROUND: Neck pain has been found to be a prevalent musculoskeletal complaint among Caucasians living in Europe and North America. The prevalence of and risk factors for this condition have not been studied among Chinese living in urbanised cities. The objective of this study was to describe the prevalence of and risk factors for neck pain in Hong Kong Chinese.

METHODS: A household survey was conducted in two housing blocks, one being government-subvented housing and the other being private housing. Eight hundred men and women who were 30 years and older were interviewed on the occurrence and characteristics of neck pain, occupations and recreational activities. The life-time and one-year prevalence of neck pain were calculated, and the odds ratio (OR) and 95 percent confidence intervals (95 percent Cl) for various risk factors were derived by logistic regression.

RESULTS: The one-year prevalence of neck pain was 15 percent and 17 per cent in men and women, respectively. The OR was 1•6 (95 per cent Cl = 1•2–2•4) for living in private housing and 2•1 (95 per cent Cl = 1•1–4•0) for working as managers and professionals. Subjects with neck pain spent more time reading, and a history of trauma to the neck was a significant risk factor for subsequent pain (OR = 5•6, 95 percent Cl = 3•3–9•4).

CONCLUSION: Neck pain is a prevalent problem in Hong Kong Chinese, particularly among subjects of a high socioeconomic status. There was little association between lifestyle and neck pain, although subjects with neck pain spent more time in reading.

Keywords: neck pain, Chinese, prevalence, risk factors


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
K.-C. Lee, T. T. Chiu, and T.-H. Lam
Psychometric properties of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire in patients with neck pain
Clinical Rehabilitation, October 1, 2006; 20(10): 909 - 920.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Scand J Public HealthHome page
K. Hagen, J.-A. Zwart, S. Svebak, G. Bovim, and L. J. Stovner
Low socioeconomic status is associated with chronic musculoskeletal complaints among 46,901 adults in Norway
Scand J Public Health, August 1, 2005; 33(4): 268 - 275.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
T. T. Chiu, T.-H. Lam, and A. J Hedley
Psychometric properties of a generic health measure in patients with neck pain
Clinical Rehabilitation, May 1, 2005; 19(5): 505 - 513.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
T. T. W. Chiu and S. K. Lo
Evaluation of cervical range of motion and isometric neck muscle strength: reliability and validity
Clinical Rehabilitation, August 1, 2002; 16(8): 851 - 858.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.