Kinesiophobia and alexithymia in knee osteoarthritis: association with radiological severity


Abstract

[p] Background: Pain and disability in knee osteoarthritis (KO) are influenced by both structural and psychosocial factors. However, the roles of kinesiophobia and alexithymia in KO remain poorly understood. Objective: To investigate the relationships among kinesiophobia, alexithymia, and radiographic severity in patients with KO. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 109 adults with clinically and radiographically confirmed KO were recruited from two tertiary care centers. Demographic and clinical data were also collected. Pain intensity was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), kinesiophobia with the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK), and alexithymia with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS). Radiographic severity was graded according to the Kellgren–Lawrence (KL) classification. Correlation and logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results: Kinesiophobia increased significantly with advancing KL stage, whereas total alexithymia scores did not correlate with radiographic severity. However, scores on the TAS subscale for difficulty identifying feelings (TAS-DIF) increased with higher KL stages. Kinesiophobia also correlated with movement-related pain, body mass index, education level, and comorbidity. Alexithymia was associated with movement-related pain, lower education, and female sex. Logistic regression analysis did not identify any variable as a significant independent predictor of alexithymia. Conclusion: Kinesiophobia progresses in parallel with radiological severity, while alexithymia appears to be primarily influenced by psychosocial variables. These findings highlight the importance of integrating psychosocial assessment and interventions—targeting fear of movement and emotional awareness—into comprehensive KO management strategies.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].