Skip to main content

Short-term impact of COVID-19 pandemic on low back pain: data from the PAMPA Cohort, Brazil



To evaluate the short-term impact of COVID-19 pandemic on low back pain (LBP) outcomes in southern Brazil.


Data from the PAMPA Cohort were analyzed. Adults were recruited between June and July 2020 in the Rio Grande do Sul state using online-based strategies. Participants responded a self-reported, online questionnaire on LBP with two timepoints: before (retrospectively) and during COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed LBP experience, LBP-related activity limitation (no/yes), and LBP intensity (0 to 10 [strongest pain]).


From a total sample of 2,321 respondents (mean age: 37.6 ± 13.5; 75.4% women), the prevalence of LBP did not change significantly from before (74.7% [95%CI 72.3; 76.9]) to the first months of pandemic (74.2% [95%CI 71.9; 76.3]). However, an increased pain levels (β: 0.40; 95%CI 0.22; 0.58) and a higher likelihood for activity limitation due to LBP was observed (PR 1.14; 95%CI 1.01; 1.29). Longitudinal analyzes showed that age, gender, BMI, chronic diseases, physical activity, and anxiety and depression symptoms, were associated with LBP in the first pandemic months.


Although the prevalence of LBP did not change at the first months of COVID-19 pandemic, LBP-induced impairment in daily activities and pain intensity was higher when compared to before the pandemic.

Peer Review reports


Low back pain (LBP) is one of the main musculoskeletal disorders responsible for disability [1]. The Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study demonstrated that the prevalence of LBP increased between 1990 and 2017, especially in southern Latin America, which has the highest LBP point prevalence worldwide (13.5%) [2].

Social distancing measures were an essential strategy to avoid coronavirus disease (COVID-19) spread [3], however led to myriad changes in people’s lives. These actions, had direct and indirect effects on distinct aspects of populational health such as increasing physical inactivity and worse levels of mental health [4, 5].

Furthermore, longer time spent at home due to social distancing led to additional time spent in sedentary activities, such as sitting. The increase in those activities, as well as the decrease in active commuting due to home office, could potentially be associated with a higher burden of LBP during the pandemic [6, 7]. Also, difficulty to combine work and household activities might had a negative effect on people’s health [8].

LBP has been recognized as a health and research priority in Brazil due to its impact on productivity and days of work lost [9]. Also, the COVID-19 outbreak raised further health issues related to LBP, given an observed reduction in the number of acute LBP cases treated in clinical settings, probably as a consequence of fear to virus and disease exposure [10]. To date, no longitudinal study has investigated the effects of social distancing during the COVID-19 outbreak on LBP prevalence and related outcomes (i.e., activity limitation and pain intensity). This study aimed to evaluate how the first months of social distancing affected LBP, activity limitation, and pain intensity during the first months of pandemic.

Materials and methods

Study design

We analyzed data from the PAMPA cohort (Prospective Study About Mental and Physical Health), a longitudinal study designed to gather data on mental and physical health in adults living in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil. Data were collected on June and July of 2020, which was around three months after the first social distancing actions implemented in Brazil. By that time Brazil had an absolute and relative cases rate (per 1 M) of + 110.5 and + 109, respectively [11]. Participants answered questions related to the period before social distancing measures (retrospectively) and the current time. The study protocol was approved by the institutional research ethics board of the Faculty of Physical Education of the Federal University of Pelotas, Brazil (CAAE: 31,906,920.7.0000.5313). Details on project methods and study design can be found elsewhere [12]. The structure of the manuscript agrees with STROBE requirements.


Sample size calculations were based on the three primary outcomes of the PAMPA Cohort (i.e., LBP, mental health, and healthcare access). The largest sample size required was 1,359 participants [13]. After accounting for a lost-to-follow-up of up to 30%, our final sample size was estimated as 1,767.

Participant recruitment

A four-arm approach was used to achieve the target sample size [12]. Firstly, we sent information about the survey objectives and a link to access the questionnaire to researchers’ personal contacts in public and private universities within the state, asking them to spread the link. Secondly, social media campaigns (i.e., Facebook® and Instagram®) were used to deliver the questionnaire’s link to different regions of the state. Thirdly, we contacted local media (radio stations, newspapers) to inform the population about the study. Finally, each researcher involved in this survey shared the link with the questionnaire access to personal contacts across the state. The recruitment stage lasted four weeks between June and July 2020.

Self-reported data

A self-administered online-based questionnaire was developed using the Google® Forms platform. The average time to complete the survey was approximately 10 min (range 7 to 12 min). Questions related to LBP, mental health (i.e., anxiety and depression symptoms), and physical activity were asked twice to address these outcomes at different periods (before and during social distancing).


We assessed LBP experience, activity limitation and pain intensity. LBP experience was assessed through an image of a person in the supine position with the low back area highlighted in a different color, followed by the question: “Before (or During) social distancing, have you had pain in your lower back, as shown in the image, for at least one day?”.

Pain intensity was assessed using a numeric pain rating scale where “0” indicated no pain and “10” indicated the worst pain. Activity limitation related to LBP was assessed by asking: “Before (or During) social distancing was your low back pain severe enough to limit your daily activities for at least one day?”.


Sociodemographic (i.e., gender, age, and educational level), nutritional status (i.e., Body Mass Index [BMI]), chronic diseases (e.g., Diabetes, cancer, heart disease), depressive and anxiety symptoms, physical activity, and commitment to social distancing were used as exposure variables. BMI was calculated as body weight (kg) / height (m) 2. Diagnostic of chronic diseases was assessed based on questions used in the Brazilian Surveillance System of Risk Factors for Chronic Diseases by Telephone Interviews (VIGITEL) [14]. Participants were also asked regarding their attitudes toward social distancing measures. For analysis purposes participants were classified based on their self-report of commitment to social distancing as follows: Low (very little and little), Medium (somewhat), and High (very much and totally isolated).

The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HDAS) was used to identify symptoms of depression and anxiety in both pre- and during social distancing [15]. This instrument includes seven items that are scored from 0 to 3, for each domain (depression and anxiety). The following criteria was used to classified the participants based on their scores: non-cases (less than 7), mild cases (between 8 and 10), moderate (between 11 and 14), and severe (between 15 and 21) [16]. As symptoms of anxiety and depression were assessed in two time points (before and during social distancing), for analyzes purposes a variable was created, regarding the change of status between timepoints, as follows: “Sustained/Better” (those who reduced or maintained their scores) or “Worse” (those who increased).

Physical activity before and during social distancing was assessed through the frequency (days per week) and time (minutes per day) participants spent practicing physical activity. A cut-off point of 150 min per week was used to classify participants as physically inactive (less than the cut-off point) or active (equal to or higher than the cut-off point), following the World Health Organization recommendation [17]. A four-category variable was created to characterize the change of physical activity status between timepoints, based on participants’ status (active or inactive) before and during social distancing, as follows: “Sustained inactive”, “Become inactive”, “Sustained active” and “Become active”.

Data analyzes

Data were exported from Google® Sheets to Stata 15.1 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas). Due to a higher number of respondents from one mesoregion in the state (South, N = 1,247 [53.7%]), all analyzes were weighted for the number of respondents in each region. To verify differences between LBP and activity limitation proportions, and pain intensity levels between periods, test of difference between proportions and t-test were used, respectively. Univariate and multivariable regression analyzes were performed for LBP (Poisson Regression), activity limitation (Poisson Regression) and pain intensity (Linear Regression) to evaluate differences between time periods and their determinants. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the presence of collinearity among the anxiety, depression and physical activity variables, and four adjusted models were built. The first model was composed of sociodemographic variables (gender, age, educational level), BMI, diagnosed chronic diseases and commitment to social distancing. The second, third and fourth models were composed by the first model plus, anxiety, depression and physical activity, respectively. A p-value ≤ 0.20 was set to determine whether variables were kept in the model, and a p-value lower than 0.05 was adopted as the level of significance.


Descriptive data

Participants descriptive data and LBP, before and during the first months of social distancing, are showed in Table 1. Participants with high school or lower educational levels, who were obese, reported chronic diseases, and females were more likely to experience LBP compared to their counterparts in both time periods. In addition, participants who reported worsen levels of anxiety and depression symptoms, who remained inactive before and during the pandemic, and had low adherence to social distancing measures reported higher prevalence rates of LBP in both periods analyzed.

Table 1 Sociodemographic, health and behavioral characteristics of participants who reported LBP. Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, 2020 (N = 2,321)

There was no significant change of LBP prevalence from before (74.7% [95%CI 72.3; 76.9]) to during the first months of restrictions (74.2% [95%CI 71.9; 76.3]) (p = 0.7549). However, a significant increase in the prevalence of activity limitation was observed from 30.2% (95%CI 27.6; 32.9) to 34.1% (95%CI 31.3; 36.9) (p = 0.014), as well as an increased pain intensity between periods (5.3 ± 2.2 vs 5.6 ± 2.7; p < 0.001). Changes in LBP prevalence, activity limitation, and pain intensity status during social distancing measures are shown in Fig. 1. Most participants remained experiencing LBP during social distancing (63.6%; 95%CI 61.1; 65.9), and 10.6% (95%CI 9.1; 12.3) reported that they initiated with LBP symptoms during this period (Fig. 1A). Regarding activity limitation, 55.1% (95%CI 51.8; 58.2) of participants remained without any limitations, and 18.9% (95% CI 16.5; 21.6) reported activity limitation associated with LBP in both time periods (Fig. 1B). Also, 78.5% reported no change or an increase in pain intensity (Fig. 1C).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Change of LBP (1A), activity limitation (1B) and pain intensity (1C) status from before to during social distancing. Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Multivariable analyzes

Regression analyzes were performed to evaluate how LBP and related outcomes changed in different groups in the two time periods. Crude and adjusted longitudinal analyzes of LBP, activity limitation and pain intensity are displayed in Fig. 2. There was no difference in the likelihood of experiencing LBP during social distancing compared to the period before (PR 0.99; 95%CI 0.95; 1.04). However, participants were 14% (95% CI 1.01; 1.29) more likely to report activity limitation during social distancing. Further, a significant increase in pain intensity was observed from before to during the pandemic (β 0.40; 95% CI 0.22; 0.58).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Crude and adjusted prevalence ratio (95%) for LBP (A) and activity limitation (B), and β coefficient (95%CI) for pain intensity, comparing two timepoints (before and during social distancing). Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, 2020. LBP was adjusted for gender, educational level, BMI, chronic disease and commitment to social distancing. Activity limitation was adjusted for gender, age, chronic disease and commitment to social distancing. Pain intensity was adjusted for gender, age group, educational level, BMI and chronic disease

The factors associated with changes in LBP, activity limitation, and pain intensity between periods are shown in Tables 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Participants who were female (PR 1.16; 95%CI 1.10; 1.23), overweight (PR 1.13; 95%CI 1.08; 1.18), obese (PR 1.10 95%CI 1.04; 1.16), with diagnosed chronic diseases (PR 1.12; 95%CI 1.07; 1.17), and worsen anxiety (PR 1.06; 95%CI 1.04; 1.08) and depression (PR 1.04; 95%CI 1.02; 1.07) symptoms during pandemic were more likely to experience LBP when compared to the period before. On the other hand, participants with higher educational levels (i.e., university degree or postgraduate), were less likely to experience LBP (PR 0.91 95%CI 0.86; 0.97 and PR 0.92 95%CI 0.87; 0.97, respectively) (Table 2).

Table 2 Crude and adjusted longitudinal Poisson regression analyzes of LBP experience. Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. 2020
Table 3 Crude and adjusted longitudinal Poisson regression analyzes of activity limitation. Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. 2020
Table 4 Crude and adjusted longitudinal Linear regression analyzes of pain intensity. Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. 2020

Participants who were middle (PR 1.41; 95%CI 1.23; 1.63) and older-age (PR 1.30; 95%CI 1.03; 1.65), with diagnosed chronic diseases (PR 1.85 95%CI 1.59; 2.15), classified as medium/high committed with social distancing measures (PR 1.47 95%CI 1.11; 1.96, and PR 1.48; 95%CI 1.14; 1.93, respectively), and with worsened symptoms of anxiety (PR 1.10; 95%CI 1.03; 1.17) and depression (PR 1.14; 95%CI 1.06; 1.22) were more likely to report activity limitation during social distancing when compared to the pre-COVID period. Also, participants who became or sustained physically inactive during social distancing were 32% (95%CI 1.07; 1.62) and 37% (95%CI 1.13; 1.65) more likely, respectively, to have some activity limitation due to LBP (Table 3).

An increase in pain intensity was observed in participants who were female (β 0.50; 95%CI 0.28; 0.71), middle-aged (β 0.43; 95%CI 0.23; 0.64), obese (β 0.48; 95%CI 0.22; 0.75), had a chronic disease (β 0.62; 95%CI 0.43; 0.82), had worsened anxiety (β 0.28; 95%CI 0.19; 0.38) and depression (β 0.22; 95%CI 0.11; 0.33) symptoms, and sustained physically inactive (β 0.55; 95%CI 0.29; 0.82). On the other hand, a decrease in pain intensity was observed in participants with high educational level (postgraduate) (β -0.43; 95%CI -0.70; -0.16) (Table 4).


Our study showed similar patterns of self-reported LBP before and during the first months of pandemic in the south of Brazil. On the other hand, an increased likelihood of activity limitation and pain intensity related to LBP between periods was observed. Factors such as gender, age, educational level, BMI and diagnosed chronic diseases were related to LBP, activity limitation and higher pain intensity during the first months of social restrictions. This scenario was also related to worsen anxiety and depression symptoms, as well as to a decreased level of physical activity.

Between 2012–2016 LBP was responsible for 59 million days off work in Brazil [9]. The cost and disability from LBP were expected to increase before pandemic [1]. However, the sanitary and economic crisis installed in Brazil due to COVID-19 aggravated this scenario in short-term. Although there was a stability of self-reported LBP in the first months of social distancing compared to before, the prevalence remains high and an increase of pain intensity and activity limitation was observed.

Our study indicates that pain intensity increased less than 1 point in the first months of social restrictions, which are below the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) threshold for patients with pain [18]. However, one should note that differences in pain intensity in clinical setting, and trials, might not reflect the same impact on epidemiological studies. Also, even small increases in pain intensity might be impactful in persistent pain [19]. We revealed that two out of three participants remained with LBP in the first months of restrictions, which might be strongly affect by increased pain intensity in their daily routine.

The relationship among female gender and obesity with LBP are well stablished in literature [20, 21]. Physiological characteristics such as a decreased muscle mass may predispose women to experience LBP [22]. Also, the daily workload routine in the timpoint assessed was higher for women, as child care and household chores pile up with their paid work, which are related to this gender effect on LBP [23]. This daily overload increased during social distancing and, therefore, aggravated the burden of LBP in this population. Similarly, obesity is a known risk factor for LBP, since increasing body weight might cause an overload in the lumbar spine articular structures, which increase the risk of disk degeneration, thus reducing spinal mobility [24]. In addition, the prolonged home stay due to social distancing measures increased sedentary sitting activities, negatively affecting joint and muscles, increasing the likelihood to increase LBP.

Recent global data showed that LBP prevalence increases from 18 years onwards and peaks at the 80’s [2]. Postural problems, reduced flexibility, as well as an increased musculoskeletal degeneration are related to LBP in the aging process [25]. The decreased muscle activation during sitting position, combined with the high load on lumbar spine, can lead to LBP [26]. This is worrisome, especially during social distancing and prolonged homestay, since people spend more time sitting [27], which can consequently increase pain levels and activity limitation.

LBP is associated with several chronic diseases, such as diabetes, cancer, hypertension and pulmonary diseases [28]. Participants who reported chronic disease were more likely to experience LBP, activity limitation and high pain levels during the first months of social distancing. People with chronic diseases were instructed to stay home, and were more likely to adhere to social distancing measures, since they were in the high-risk group for COVID-19. Also, people with chronic diseases were less likely to seek in-person healthcare in the first months of pandemic [29], which can contribute to increase pain levels reported by this population.

Participants who reported worsened symptoms of depression and anxiety in the first months of social restriction were more likely to experience LBP, increased pain levels and activity limitation. We showed a sharp increase on anxiety and depression symptoms on southern Brazil population in first restriction months [30]. It has been reported that higher levels of anxiety, depression and stress are associated with physical symptoms [31]. Specifically, during COVID-19 pandemic, concerns related to lack of medical facilities or proper sanitary measures, could increase anxiety/depression and consequently increase LBP.

Studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic showed a protective effect of physical activity in LBP [21, 32]. However, because of social distancing and prolonged homestay, people are more likely to become or stay inactive [33,34,35]. Previous studies have not found an association between pain intensity and activity limitation with physical activity [36, 37]. However, it is possible that an increase in pain levels and activity limitation can be a barrier for participants to engage in physical activity, which might explain our findings.

Limitations of our study should be pointed. First, because of COVID-19 pandemic, face-to-face data collection were not allowed by ethics boards when data were collected. Thus, sampling bias cannot be ruled since internet-based surveys does not enable an equiprobable sampling since participants with low economic status are less likely to have internet access [38]. Second, the assessment of some outcomes such as disability was hampered due to online data collection. An increased time to answer the questionnaire might reduce the chance of participation, since most people uses cellphones and tablets [38]. Third, the retrospective design of our study might be subject to recall bias. However, as LBP is a remarkable event in people’s life and it has increased during COVID-19 pandemic, this bias effect is expected to be minimal. In spite of these limitations, LBP is an important health outcome and was affected by COVID-19 pandemic measures.

By the time of this paper, we have not found any large, longitudinal population-based study on the relationship between LBP and pandemic restriction measures. Also, we believe that future studies should focus on intervention strategies to reduce the LBP burden resulted from restriction measures. Strategies such as internet cognitive behavior therapy might be helpful in times of social restriction measures [39].


Activity limitation and LBP intensity increased in the first months of COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Female sex, overweight/obese, participants who were middle-/older-age, had chronic diseases, and those who became physically inactive were more likely to experience LBP. Worsened symptoms of anxiety and depression were associated with all outcomes, which shows that mental health is highly related to LBP.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from Faculty of Physical Education (Federal University of Pelotas), but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Faculty of Physical Education (Federal University of Pelotas).



Low back pain


Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale


Prevalence Ratio


  1. Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. The Lancet. Lancet Publishing Group; 2018. pp. 2356–2367. doi:

  2. Wu A, March L, Zheng X, Huang J, Wang X, Zhao J, et al. Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8:299–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Islam N, Sharp SJ, Chowell G, Shabnam S, Kawachi I, Lacey B, et al. Physical distancing interventions and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019: natural experiment in 149 countries. BMJ. 2020;370: m2743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Caputo EL, Reichert FF. Studies of Physical Activity and COVID-19 during the Pandemic: A Scoping Review. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.; 2020. doi:

  5. Feter N, Caputo E, Doring IR, Reichert FF, da Silva MC, Coombes JS, et al. Sharp increase in depression and anxiety among Brazilian adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the PAMPA cohort. Public Health. 2021;190:101–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Amorim AB, Levy GM, Pérez-Riquelme F, Simic M, Pappas E, Dario AB, et al. Does sedentary behavior increase the risk of low back pain? A population-based co-twin study of Spanish twins. Spine Journal. 2017;17:933–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hussain SM, Urquhart DM, Wang Y, Dunstan D, Shaw JE, Magliano DJ, et al. Associations between television viewing and physical activity and low back pain in community-based adults. Medicine (United States). Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2016. doi:

  8. Yerkes MA, André SCH, Besamusca JW, Kruyen PM, Remery CLHS, van der Zwan R, et al. “Intelligent” lockdown, intelligent effects? Results from a survey on gender (in)equality in paid work, the division of childcare and household work, and quality of life among parents in the Netherlands during the Covid-19 lockdown. PLoS One. 2020;15. doi:

  9. Carregaro RL, Tottoli CR, da Silva Rodrigues D, Bosmans JE, da Silva EN, van Tulder M. Low back pain should be considered a health and research priority in Brazil: Lost productivity and healthcare costs between 2012 to 2016. PLoS ONE. Public Library of Science; 2020. doi:

  10. Borsa S, Pluderi M, Carrabba G, Ampollini A, Pirovano M, Lombardi F, et al. Letter to the Editor: Impact of COVID-19 Outbreak on Acute Low Back Pain. World Neurosurgery. Elsevier Inc.; 2020. p. 749. doi:

  11. Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) - Our World in Data. [cited 4 Dec 2022]. Available:

  12. Feter N, Caputo EL, Doring IR, Leite JS, Cassuriaga J, Felipe ;, et al. Longitudinal study about low back pain, mental health, and access to healthcare system during COVID-19 pandemic: protocol of an ambispective cohort. medRxiv. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2020 Jul. doi:

  13. Stopa SR, Malta DC, de Oliveira MM, de Souza LC, Menezes PR, Kinoshita RT. Prevalência do autorrelato de depressão no Brasil: Resultados da pesquisa nacional de saúde, 2013. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2015;18:170–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Enes CC, Nucci LB. A Telephone Surveillance System for Noncommunicable Diseases in Brazil. Public Health Reports. SAGE Publications Ltd; 2019. pp. 324–327. doi:

  15. Djukanovic I, Carlsson J, Årestedt K. Is the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) a valid measure in a general population 65–80 years old? A psychometric evaluation study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15. doi:

  16. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. WHO. WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. 2020 [cited 3 Dec 2020]. Available:

  18. Salaffi F, Stancati A, Silvestri CA, Ciapetti A, Grassi W. Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. Eur J Pain. 2004;8:283–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Galbusera F, Côtè P, Negrini S. Expected impact of lockdown measures due to COVID-19 on disabling conditions: a modelling study of chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2021;30:2944–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jiménez-Trujillo I, López-de-Andrés A, Del Barrio JL, Hernández-Barrera V, Valero-de-Bernabé M, Jiménez-García R. Gender Differences in the Prevalence and Characteristics of Pain in Spain: Report from a Population-Based Study. Pain Med. 2019;20:2349–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gouveia N, Rodrigues A, Eusébio M, Ramiro S, Machado P, Canhão H, et al. Prevalence and social burden of active chronic low back pain in the adult Portuguese population: results from a national survey. Rheumatol Int. 2016;36:183–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, March L, Brooks P, Blyth F, et al. A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis and Rheumatism. Arthritis Rheum; 2012. pp. 2028–2037. doi:

  23. Meucci RD, Fassa AG, Faria NMX. Prevalence of chronic low back pain: systematic review. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Meucci RD, Fassa AG, Paniz VMV, Silva MC, Wegman DH. Increase of chronic low back pain prevalence in a medium-sized city of southern Brazil. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Barbosa MH, Bolina AF, Tavares JL, De Carvalho Cordeiro ALP, Luiz RB, De Oliveira KF. Sociodemographic and Health factors associated with chronic pain in institutionalized elderly. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2014;22:1009–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mörl F, Bradl I. Lumbar posture and muscular activity while sitting during office work. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2013;23:362–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Meyer J, Herring M, McDowell C, Lansing J, Brower C, Schuch F, et al. Joint Prevalence of Physical Activity and Sitting Time during COVID-19 Among US Adults in April 2020. Prev Med Rep. 2020;20: 101256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Strine TW, Hootman JM. US national prevalence and correlates of low back and neck pain among adults. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:656–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Leite JS, Feter N, Caputo EL, Doring IR, Cassurriaga J, Reichert FF, et al. Managing noncommunicable diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil: findingsthe PAMPA cohort. Cien Saude Colet. In Press.

  30. Feter N, Caputo EL, Doring IR, Leite JS, Cassuriaga J, Reichert FF, et al. Sharp increase in depression and anxiety among Brazilian adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the PAMPA cohort. Public Health. 2021;190:101–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang C, Chudzicka-Czupała A, Tee ML, Núñez MIL, Tripp C, Fardin MA, et al. A chain mediation model on COVID-19 symptoms and mental health outcomes in Americans, Asians and Europeans. Sci Rep. 2021;11. doi:

  32. B. Amorim A, Simic M, Pappas E, Zadro JR, Carrillo E, Ordoñana JR, et al. Is occupational or leisure physical activity associated with low back pain? Insights from a cross-sectional study of 1059 participants. Braz J Phys Ther. 2019;23: 257–265. doi:

  33. Lesser IA, Nienhuis CP. The impact of COVID-19 on physical activity behavior and well-being of canadians. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17. doi:

  34. He M, Xian Y, Lv X, He J, Ren Y. Changes in body weight, physical activity and lifestyle during the semi-lockdown period after the outbreak of COVID-19 in China: An online survey. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2020; 1. doi:

  35. Smith L, Jacob L, Butler L, Schuch F, Barnett Y, Grabovac I, et al. Prevalence and correlates of physical activity in a sample of UK adults observing social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2020;6. doi:

  36. Lin CWC, McAuley JH, MacEdo L, Barnett DC, Smeets RJ, Verbunt JA. Relationship between physical activity and disability in low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2011;152:607–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hendrick P, Milosavljevic S, Hale L, Hurley DA, McDonough S, Ryan B, et al. The relationship between physical activity and low back pain outcomes: A systematic review of observational studies. European Spine Journal. Eur Spine J; 2011. pp. 464–474. doi:

  38. Caputo EL, Feter N, Rombaldi AJ, da Silva MC, Reichert FF. What are the challenges of epidemiological research during the COVID-19 pandemic? Motriz Revista de Educacao Fisica. 2021;27: e10200200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Carlbring P, Andersson G, Cuijpers P, Riper H, Hedman-Lagerlöf E. Internet-based vs. face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy for psychiatric and somatic disorders: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Cogn Behav Ther. 2018;47: 1–18. doi:

Download references


This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001. Paulo Ferreira is supported by a NHMRC Career Development Fellowship and a Sydney University SOAR fellowship. Manuela Ferreira is supported by an MRFF/NHMRC Career Development Fellowship and is a Sydney Medical Foundation Fellow/Sydney University.


None declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



ELC instigated this research project and was responsible for data analyzes and writing; IRD, JSL, RA, JC, contributed to the research design; NF, FFR, AJR, PHF and MCS assisted with the initial construction, direction and arguments of the discussion. All authors reviewed and provided constructive advice and critique to the editing process for the multiple iterations of this document. Following this rigorous review and editing process all authors support the submission of this manuscript for peer review and publication. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo L. Caputo.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Board of the Physical Education Faculty, Federal University of Pelotas, Brazil (CAAE: 31906920.7.0000.5313), in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication


Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Caputo, E.L., Ferreira, P.H., Feter, N. et al. Short-term impact of COVID-19 pandemic on low back pain: data from the PAMPA Cohort, Brazil. BMC Public Health 23, 44 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: