Can group-based reassuring information alter low back pain behavior? A cluster-randomized controlled trial

Reassurance use and reassurance-related outcomes for low back pain in primary care: A scoping review

We used a scoping review design to map the available evidence describing the use of reassurance in clinical practice, interventions to increase the delivery of reassurance, and reassurance-related outcome measures. We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central from inception to October 2024. Publications were included if they described the use of reassurance or reassurance-related outcome measures in patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP) presenting to primary care. We did not exclude publications on the basis of study design. Data were extracted and charted in accordance with study aims. We included 88 publications describing 66 primary studies. Twenty-one papers described how clinicians used reassurance in primary care, including: information provided (n=16), frequency of use (n=6), challenges providing reassurance (n=7), and importance of individualising reassurance (n=11). Reassurance interventions were investigated in 46 trials. Reassurance interventions were delivered verbally by clinicians to individuals (n=29) or groups (n=14), or via educational materials (n=18). Only one trial measured how reassured the patient felt after the intervention using a single-item non-validated question. Thirty-six trials used indirect measurements of reassurance success, including reductions in: fear-avoidance (n=23), worry (n=8), anxiety (n=8), pain catastrophising (n=10), and further healthcare utilisation (n=12). Relatively few papers have described how clinicians use reassurance in primary care. Reassurance interventions were investigated in 46 trials; however, reassurance was rarely the primary component of the intervention and was often delivered as part of an education intervention. There are no validated measures to directly assess how reassured a patient feels after an intervention. PERSPECTIVE: This review maps the available evidence describing how patient reassurance is used and assessed in the management of low back pain. There is limited assessment of the effectiveness of reassurance interventions. Reassurance is rarely the primary component of interventions and there are no validated measures to directly assess patient reassurance.

Models of care for managing non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Alternative care models seek to improve the quality or efficiency of care, or both, and thus optimise patient health outcomes. They provide the same health care but change how, when, where, or by whom health care is delivered and co-ordinated. Examples include care delivered via telemedicine versus in-person care or care delivered to groups versus individual patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of alternative models of evidenced-based care for people with non-specific low back pain on the quality of care and patient self-reported outcomes and to summarise the availability and principal findings of economic evaluations of these alternative models.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries up to 14 June 2024, unrestricted by language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing alternative care models to usual care or other care models. Eligible trials had to investigate care models that changed at least one domain of the Cochrane EPOC delivery arrangement taxonomy and provide the same care as the comparator arm. Participants were individuals with non-specific low back pain, regardless of symptom duration. Main outcomes were quality of care (referral for/receipt of lumbar spine imaging, prescription/use of opioids, referral to a surgeon/lumbar spine surgery, admission to hospital for back pain), patient health outcomes (pain, back-related function), and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was alternative models of care versus usual care at closest follow-up to 12 months.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-seven trials (29,578 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Trials were primarily set within primary care (18 trials) or physiotherapy practices (15 trials) in high-income countries (51 trials). Forty-eight trials compared alternative models of care to usual care. There was substantial clinical diversity across alternative care models. Alternative care models most commonly differed from usual care by altering the co-ordination/management of care processes (18 trials), or by utilising information and communication technology (10 trials). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that alternative care models probably result in little difference in referral for or receipt of any lumbar spine imaging at follow-up closest to 12 months compared to usual care (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 0.98; I2 = 2%; 18 trials, 16,157 participants). In usual care, 232/1000 people received lumbar spine imaging compared to 213/1000 people who received alternative care models. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level due to serious indirectness (diversity in outcome measurement). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that alternative care models probably result in little or no difference in the prescription or use of opioid medication at follow-up closest to 12 months compared to usual care (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; I2 = 0%; 15 trials, 13,185 participants). In usual care, 349 out of 1000 people used opioid medication compared to 332 out of 1000 people in alternative care models. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level due to serious indirectness (diversity in outcome measurement). We are uncertain if alternative care models alter referral for or use of lumbar spine surgery at follow-up closest to 12 months compared to usual care as the certainty of the evidence was very low (odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 10 trials, 4189 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by three levels due to very serious imprecision (wide CIs) and serious indirectness (diversity in outcome measurement). We are uncertain if alternative care models alter hospital admissions for non-specific low back pain at follow-up closest to 12 months compared to usual care as the certainty of evidence was very low (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.11; I2 = 8%; 12 trials, 10,485 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by three levels due to serious indirectness (diversity in outcome measurement), serious publication bias (asymmetry of results), minor imprecision (wide CIs), and minor risk of bias (blinding of participants/personnel). High-certainty evidence indicates that alternative care models result in a small but clinically unimportant improvement in pain on a 0 to 10 scale (mean difference -0.24, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.05; I2 = 68%; 36 trials, 9403 participants). Mean pain at follow-up closest to 12 months was 2.4 points on a 0 to 10 rating scale (lower score indicates less pain) with usual care compared to 2.2 points with alternative care models, a difference of 0.2 points better (95% CI 0.4 better to 0.0 better; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 0.5 to 1.5 points). High-certainty evidence indicates that alternative care models result in a small, clinically unimportant improvement in back-related function compared with usual care (standardised mean difference -0.12, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04; I2 = 66%; 44 trials, 13,688 participants). Mean back-related function at follow-up closest to 12 months was 6.4 points on a 0 to 24 rating scale (lower score indicates less disability) with usual care compared to 5.7 points with alternative care models, a difference of 0.7 points better (95% CI 1.2 better to 0.2 better; MCID 1.5 to 2.5 points). We are uncertain of the effect of alternative care models on adverse events compared to usual care as the certainty of the evidence was very low (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 43%; 10 trials, 2880 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by three levels due to serious risk of bias (blinding of participants/personnel), serious indirectness (variation in assumed risk), and serious inconsistency (substantial between-study heterogeneity).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, alternative care models for non-specific low back pain probably lead to little or no difference in the quality of care and result in small but clinically unimportant improvements in pain and back-related function. Whether alternative care models result in a difference in total adverse events compared to usual care remains unresolved.

Effect of a smartphone self-management digital support system for low-back pain (selfBACK) among workers with high physical work demands - secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate whether physical work demands modify the effect of the selfBACK app, which is designed to support self-management of low-back pain.

METHODS

In a secondary analysis of the selfBACK trial with 346 employed participants, we stratified into low (N=165) and high physical work demands (N=181). Outcomes included the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (0-24), a numeric rating scale for low-back pain intensity (0-10), the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (0-60), and work ability (0-10). Intervention effects were assessed at three- and nine-month follow-ups using a linear mixed model.

RESULTS

At three months, high physical demand workers with selfBACK showed a significant reduction in pain intensity [-0.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.3- -0.2] compared to usual care. By nine months, the high physical demands workers with selfBACK reported reduced pain-related disability (-1.4, 95% CI -2.7- -0.1), improved pain self-efficacy (3.5, 95% CI 0.9-6.0), and lower pain intensity (-1.0, 95% CI -1.6- -0.4) compared to usual care. Low physical demands workers with selfBACK also improved pain self-efficacy [2.8 (95% CI 0.3-5.3)] compared to usual care. The impact of selfBACK was more noticeable among workers with high physical demands compared to their low physical demand counterparts, but no statistically significant differences were found in any outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The selfBACK intervention had consistent effects across workers with high and low physical work demands, indicating that these demands did not modify its impact. Both groups experienced similar positive effects, highlighting the intervention's effectiveness across varying levels of physical work demands.

An Occupational Health Literacy Intervention in Nursing Homes Improved Organizational Health Literacy-A Quasi-Experimental Stepped Wedge Cluster Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the effectiveness of a workplace health literacy intervention on individual, interpersonal, and organizational health literacy.

METHOD

Using a quasi-experimental stepped wedge cluster design, we evaluated an intervention for 509 nursing home employees with two elements: 1) courses for employees and management on pain prevention, management, and communication and 2) structured dialogues between employees and supervisors, emphasizing pain prevention.

RESULTS

One organizational health literacy item improved, with supervisors helping with pain prevention increasing by 0.42 points (95% CI 0.11;0.73). Positive trends were observed in supervisor actions when informed about pain (0.39 points, 95% CI -0.09;0.86), ease of finding workplace pain solutions (0.12 points, 95% CI -0.03;0.79), and employees having pain management information (0.44 points, 95% CI -0.03;0.92).

CONCLUSION

The intervention improved one organizational health literacy item, with positive trends in three other items.

The Effect of Cautionary Versus Resiliency Spine Education on Maximum Deadlift Performance and Back Beliefs: A Randomized Control Trial

ABSTRACT

Scott, KM, Kreisel, BR, Florkiewicz, EM, Crowell, MS, Morris, JB, McHenry, PA, and Benedict, TM. The effect of cautionary versus resiliency spine education on maximum deadlift performance and back beliefs: A randomized control trial. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): e341-e348, 2024-The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of cautionary information about the spine vs. a message of spine resiliency on maximum deadlift (MDL) performance and beliefs regarding the vulnerability of the spine. This cluster randomized control trial involved 903 military new cadets (n = 903) during their mandatory fitness test in cadet basic training (mean age 18.3 years, body mass index 23.8 kg·m-2, 22% female). Subjects were cluster randomized to 3 groups. The cautionary group received a message warning them to protect their backs while deadlifting, the resiliency group received a message encouraging confidence while deadlifting, and the control group received the standardized Army deadlift education only. The outcome measures were MDL weight lifted and perceived spine vulnerability. Significance was set at alpha ≤0.05. There were no between-group differences in weight lifted (p=0.40). Most subjects believed that the spine is vulnerable to injury. Three times as many subjects who received the resiliency education improved their beliefs about the vulnerability of their spines compared with those receiving the cautionary education (p<0.001). This study demonstrated the potential for brief resiliency education to positively influence beliefs about spine vulnerability, whereas cautionary education did not impair performance.

Helpful elements in a brief work-oriented intervention targeting musculoskeletal and mental health literacy

Musculoskeletal and mental health complaints are common in the general population and frequent reasons for healthcare utilization and work absence. Illness perceptions, coping expectancies, rumination and self-stigma are important factors in the management of these health complaints and factors closely linked to health literacy (HL). The aims of the study were to identify helpful elements in a brief intervention (BI) targeting HL regarding common musculoskeletal and mental health complaints and to identify patient perceptions of how the intervention was helpful and whether it affected their subsequent coping. Three focus group interviews with 14 patients were conducted. Systematic text condensation was used for the analysis, supported by the health literacy skill (HLS) framework to sharpen the focus on intervention elements related to the acquisition and utilization of HLSs. Results revealed the importance of receiving comprehensible health information and guidance, the use of metaphors to create recognizable narratives and the use of practical examples and exercises. Normalizing the experienced health complaints, together with a safe and accommodating clinical environment, facilitated the change process. The BI initiated processes that contributed to acceptance, resilience and empowerment, aiding work-life balance and return to work. The study presents authentic narratives of value for future focus in BI.

Advice to remain active with arm pain reduces disability

BACKGROUND

Arm pain is common amongst working-aged adults and causes substantial work disability. The results of a population-based randomized controlled trial (the ARM trial) suggested that advice to remain active reduced disability after 6 months.

AIMS

To verify ARM trial results amongst people in paid employment.

METHODS

The ARM trial recruited adults with distal arm pain referred for physiotherapy and randomized equally to three groups: wait-listed for physiotherapy (advised to rest); wait-listed for physiotherapy (advised to remain active) or early physiotherapy. The primary outcome was absence of disability at 26 weeks. Secondary analyses were undertaken amongst participants in paid employment.

RESULTS

Amongst 538 trial participants, 347 (64%) were in paid employment, mean age 46.1 years and 47% in manual work. Employed participants were randomized equally to the three arms. Amongst the 271 (78% workers with 26-week data), 43% of those advised to remain active were free from disability, as compared with 37% of those advised to rest. Forty per cent of those who waited for physiotherapy were disability-free as compared with 35% of those treated rapidly. Advice to rest was associated with lower chances of recovery amongst workers who lift/carry weights and those who believed work had caused their symptoms (P = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Although not powered as a trial for workers only, our findings suggest that advising activity was as beneficial for people currently in paid work and may be superior to advice to rest in reducing disability. Addressing harmful beliefs about causation of symptoms has the potential to reduce disability.

Measuring, Analyzing, and Presenting Work Productivity Loss in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to conduct a scoping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and investigate which work productivity loss outcomes were measured in these RCTs, how each outcome was measured and analyzed, and how the results for each outcome were presented.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted from January 2010 to April 2020 from 2 databases: PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data on country, study population, disease focus, sample size, work productivity loss outcomes measured (absenteeism, presenteeism, employment status changes), and methods used to measure, report, and analyze each work productivity loss outcome were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

We found 435 studies measuring absenteeism or presenteeism, of which 155 studies (35.6%) measured both absenteeism and presenteeism and were included in our final review. Only 9 studies also measured employment status changes. The most used questionnaire was the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. The analysis of absenteeism and presenteeism data was mostly done using regression models (n = 98, n = 98, respectively) for which a normal distribution was assumed (n = 77, n = 89, respectively). Absenteeism results were most often presented in time whereas presenteeism was commonly presented using a percent scale or score.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of consensus on how to measure, analyze, and present work productivity loss outcomes in RCTs published in the past 10 years. The diversity of measurement, analysis, and presentation methods used in RCTs may make comparability challenging. There is a need for guidelines providing recommendations to standardize the comprehensiveness and the appropriateness of methods used to measure, analyze, and report work productivity loss in RCTs.

[Patient education for acute low back pain : Contents of pain education in patients with acute non-specific low back pain - a scoping review]

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the review is to map the content of intervention education in people with acute nonspecific lumbar low back pain (LBP) to make it available in a synopsis.

BACKGROUND

In the care of people with acute non-specific LBP, education is recommended as an elementary treatment component. However, the proposed content is proving to be heterogenic and the question arises as to how education should be designed in the future.

METHOD

A systematic literature search and content analysis of studies with content on pain education was conducted as part of a scoping review. Inclusion criteria were: provision of relevant information on the content of pain education, patients with acute nonspecific low back pain, 18 years or older, publication in English or German. The search was conducted in the Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PEDro databases and supplemented by a hand search. The search was completed in February 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 4239 hits were identified, of which 90 studies were included. A wide range of content was found and clustered into ten categories. The most frequent statements were in the categories "recommendations for dealing with LRS," "education, reassuring aspects, and relieving basic messages," and "information and recommendations about medications."

CONCLUSION

The teaching of pathoanatomical information can potentially trigger or increase anxiety and worry, whereas information on neurophysiological mechanisms of pain development and processing is more likely to have an anxiety-reducing effect. The results can contribute to the design of the intervention in different settings.

Attitudes and Beliefs of Primary Care Physicians Working in Saudi Arabia Regarding the Management of Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction

Healthcare professionals’ beliefs and attitudes towards low back pain management play a significant role during treatment. This is a crucial aspect of primary care physicians working as a first point of contact for people seeking healthcare for low back pain.

Aim

To identify the beliefs and behaviors of frontline healthcare professionals (primary care physicians) working in the Riyadh region with regard to low back pain management.

Methods

A cross-sectional design was implemented, in which the Pain Attitude and Beliefs Scale (PABS) questionnaire was used along with a low back pain clinical vignette with some questions. The PABS assesses healthcare provider orientations toward low back pain with two subscales: biomedical and behavioral. In total, 400 primary care physicians working in the Riyadh region of Saudi Arabia were invited to participate.

Results

The responding primary care physicians (n = 72, response rate = 18%) provided an average score on the behavioral subscale (mean = 31.5±7.1) that was lower than that on the biomedical subscale (36.5±7.8) of the PABS. The lower scores in the biomedical subscale are associated with the using of clinical guidelines for low back pain management (χ² (1) = 4.7, p = 0.03). Moreover, providing guideline-based advices regarding activity and work was more likely to come from those scoring above the mean in the behavioral subscale.

Conclusion

The results of this study show that Saudi Arabian primary care physicians manage their patients within a biomedical framework; there is some compliance to the current low back pain clinical guidelines among these physicians, with under/post-graduate education being needed for these professionals to adopt a more biopsychosocial framework during low back pain management.

Comparing the new interdisciplinary Health in work intervention to conventional monodisciplinary welfare interventions at Norwegian workplaces: Protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial (Preprint)

Background

Musculoskeletal and mental health complaints are the dominant diagnostic categories in long-term sick leave and disability pensions in Norway. Continuing to work despite health complaints is often beneficial, and a good work environment can improve work inclusion for people affected. In 2001, the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration began to offer inclusive work measures to improve the psychosocial work environment and work inclusion of people with health complaints. In 2018, the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration and specialist health services started offering the new collaborative Health in work program. Its workplace intervention presents health and welfare information that may improve employees’ coping ability regarding common health complaints. It encourages understanding of coworkers’ health complaints and appropriate work adjustments to increase work participation.

Objective

This protocol presents an ongoing, 2-arm, pragmatic cluster-randomized trial. Its aim is to compare the effect of monodisciplinary inclusive work measures (treatment as usual) and interdisciplinary Health in work in terms of changes in overall sickness absence, health care use, health-related quality of life, and costs. The secondary objectives are to compare changes in individual sickness absence, psychosocial work environment, job and life satisfaction, health, and health anxiety at both the individual and group levels.

Methods

Data will be collected from national registers, trial-specific registrations, and questionnaires. Effects will be explored using difference-in-difference analysis and regression modeling. Multilevel analysis will visualize any cluster effects using intraclass correlation coefficients.

Results

Inclusion was completed in July 2021 with 97 workplaces and 1383 individual consents. Data collection will be completed with the last questionnaires to be sent out in July 2023.

Conclusions

This trial will contribute to filling knowledge gaps regarding the effectiveness and costs of workplace interventions, thereby benefiting health and welfare services, political decision makers, and the public and business sectors. The findings will be disseminated in reports, peer-reviewed journals, and conferences.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04000035; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04000035

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/36166

A scoping review to ascertain the parameters for an evidence synthesis of psychological interventions to improve work and wellbeing outcomes among employees with chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Psychological interventions have mixed effects on improving employee outcomes, partly due to significant variability across studies and a lack of focus on mechanisms of action. This scoping review reports on the parameters of these interventions and examines intervention content to bring clarity to this heterogeneous topic area and direct future systematic review work.

METHOD

Six databases were searched (Cinahl, Cochrane, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO and Web of Science) from April 2010 to August 2020, and a grey literature search was undertaken. Screening was undertaken independently by two authors. The results summarised country, participant and employment characteristics, psychological interventions and work, health and wellbeing outcomes. 10% of the papers were analysed to determine the feasibility of coding intervention descriptions for theory and behaviour change technique (BCT) components.

RESULTS

Database searches yielded 9341 titles, of which 91 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in Europe (78%) and included males and females (95%) ranging in age from 31-56.6 years although other demographic, and employment information was lacking. Musculoskeletal pain was common (87%). Psychological interventions commonly included cognitive behavioural therapy (30%) and education (28%). Most studies employed a randomised control trial design (64%). Over half contained a control group (54%). Interventions were delivered in mostly healthcare settings (72%) by health professionals. Multiple outcomes were often reported, many of which involved measuring sickness absence and return-to-work (62%) and pain and general health (53%). Within the feasibility analysis, most papers met the minimum criteria of containing one paragraph of intervention description, but none explicitly mentioned theory or BCTs.

CONCLUSION

Psychological interventions for employees with chronic pain vary in their nature and implementation. We have shown scoping reviews can be used to assess the feasibility of applying tools from health psychology to identify the content of these interventions in future systematic review work to improve intervention development.

Should musicians play in pain?

Musculoskeletal symptoms, including pain, are often experienced by musicians at all levels. These symptoms may have a detrimental impact on musicians' personal and work lives, and may also impact upon the ensembles they work within. Providing musicians with appropriate, evidence-based advice regarding pain management is therefore paramount. In this review, we aim to improve the advice given to musicians regarding playing when in pain, by answering the question 'should musicians play in pain?'. This multidisciplinary narrative review draws upon contemporary pain science, including factors associated with poorer prognoses for those in pain, as well as the reported experiences of musicians with pain (including those who have taken time off from playing). Our current understanding of pain science provides further support for the potential for consequences related to avoiding activities due to pain. Pain is modulated by a number of neuro-immunological processes and is influenced by a range of psychosocial factors. Taking time off from playing might therefore not have any benefit. Importantly, one of the leading causes of a transition from acute to chronic pain is fear-avoidance behaviour (e.g. not playing when in pain); hence, encouraging such behaviour cannot be supported. Musicians who have taken time off from playing due to pain have experienced a range of consequences, including emotional and financial consequences. These experiences indicate that there are potential negative consequences related to taking time off from playing which need to be weighed against any benefits. We conclude that musicians should not necessarily be advised to take time off from playing to manage their pain, in keeping with current best practice for pain management. Instead, we recommend that musicians be educated on contemporary pain science and when to seek treatment from a health professional for individualised advice to reduce the burden of musicians' pain.

Education as a strategy for managing occupational-related musculoskeletal pain: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is the primary contributor to disability worldwide. There is a growing consensus that MSK pain is a recurrent multifactorial condition underpinned by health and lifestyle factors. Studies suggest that education on work-related pain and individualised advice could be essential and effective for managing persistent MSK pain.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review was to map the existing educational resources for work-related MSK (WRMSK) pain, and the effects of implementing educational strategies in the workplace on managing WRMSK pain.

METHODS

This scoping review assessed original studies that implemented and assessed education as a strategy to manage WMSK pain. Literature search strategies were developed using thesaurus headings (ie, MeSH and CINAHL headings) and free-text search including words related to MSK in an occupational setting. The search was carried out in PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Web of Science in the period 12-14 February 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 19 peer-reviewed articles were included and the study design, aim and outcomes were summarised. Of the 19 peer-reviewed articles, 10 randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies assessed the influence of education on work-related MSK pain. Many studies provided a limited description of the education material and assessed/used different methods of delivery. A majority of studies concluded education positively influences work-related MSK pain. Further, some studies reported additive effects of physical activity or ergonomic adjustments.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a gap in knowledge regarding the best content and delivery of education of material in the workplace. Although beneficial outcomes were reported, more RCT studies are required to determine the effects of education material as compared with other interventions, such as exercise or behavioural therapy.

Early occupational intervention for people with low back pain in physically demanding jobs: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Occupational medicine seeks to reduce sick leave; however, evidence for an add-on effect to usual care is sparse. The objective of the GOBACK trial was to test whether people with low back pain (LBP) in physically demanding jobs and at risk of sick leave gain additional benefit from a 3-month complex intervention that involves occupational medicine consultations, a work-related evaluation and workplace intervention plan, an optional workplace visit, and a physical activity program, over a single hospital consultation and an MRI.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We enrolled people from the capital region of Denmark to an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with a superiority design from March 2014 through December 2015. In a hospital setting 305 participants (99 women) with LBP and in physically demanding jobs were randomized to occupational intervention (n = 153) or no additional intervention (control group; n = 152) added to a single hospital consultation giving a thorough explanation of the pain (i.e., clinical examination and MRI) and instructions to stay active and continue working. Primary outcome was accumulated sick leave days due to LBP during 6 months. Secondary outcomes were changes in neuropathic pain (painDETECT questionnaire [PDQ]), pain 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) for physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and self-assessed ability to continue working (range 0-10). An intention-to-treat analysis of sick leave at 6 months showed no significant difference between groups (mean difference in days suggestively in favor of no additional intervention: 3.50 [95% CI -5.08 to 12.07], P = 0.42). Both groups showed significant improvements in average pain score (NRS), disability (RMDQ), fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activities and work (FABQ), and physical HRQoL (SF-36 physical component summary); there were no significant differences between the groups in any secondary outcome. There was no statistically significant improvement in neuropathic pain (PDQ score), mental HRQoL (SF-36 mental component summary), and self-assessed ability to stay in job. Four participants could not complete the MRI or the intervention due to a claustrophobic attack or accentuated back pain. Workplace visits may be an important element in the occupational intervention, although not always needed. A per-protocol analysis that included the 40 participants in the intervention arm who received a workplace visit as part of the additional occupational intervention did not show an add-on benefit in terms of sick leave (available cases after 6 months, mean difference: -0.43 days [95% CI -12.8 to 11.94], P = 0.945). The main limitations were the small number of sick leave days taken and that the comprehensive use of MRI may limit generalization of the findings to other settings, for example, general practice.

CONCLUSIONS

When given a single hospital consultation and MRI, people in physically demanding jobs at risk of sick leave due to LBP did not benefit from a complex additional occupational intervention. Occupational interventions aimed at limiting biopsychological obstacles (e.g., fear-avoidance beliefs and behaviors), barriers in the workplace, and system barriers seem essential to reduce sick leave in patients with LBP. This study indicates that these obstacles and barriers may be addressed by thorough usual care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov: NCT02015572.

Effect of Reassuring Information About Musculoskeletal and Mental Health Complaints at the Workplace: A Cluster Randomized Trial of the atWork Intervention

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the possible difference between the Modified atWork intervention (MAW) and the Original atWork intervention (OAW) on sick leave and other health related outcomes. atWork is a group intervention using the workplace as an arena for distribution of evidence-based knowledge about musculoskeletal and mental health complaints. Methods A cluster randomized controlled trial with 93 kindergartens, comprising a total of 1011 employees, was conducted. Kindergartens were stratified by county and size and randomly allocated to MAW (45 clusters, 324 respondents) or OAW (48 clusters, 313 respondents). The randomization and intervention allocation processes were concealed. There was no blinding to group allocation. Primary outcome was register data on sick leave at cluster level. Secondary outcomes were health complaints, job satisfaction, social support, coping, and beliefs about musculoskeletal and mental health complaints, measured at the individual level. Results The MAW group reduced sick leave by 5.7% during the intervention year, while the OAW group had a 7.5% increase. Overall, the changes were not statistically significant, and no difference was detected between groups, based on 45 and 47 kindergartens. Compared to the OAW group, the MAW group had a smaller reduction for two of the statements concerning faulty beliefs about back pain, but believed less in the hereditary nature of depression. Conclusions The MAW did not have a different effect on sick leave at cluster level compared to the OAW. Trial registration https://Clinicaltrials.gov/ : NCT02396797. Registered March 23th, 2015.

Fear Avoidance Beliefs and Risk of Long-Term Sickness Absence: Prospective Cohort Study among Workers with Musculoskeletal Pain

Background and Objective

Musculoskeletal pain is common in the population. Negative beliefs about musculoskeletal pain and physical activity may lead to avoidance behavior resulting in absence from work. The present study investigates the influence of fear avoidance beliefs on long-term sickness absence.

Methods

Workers of the general working population with musculoskeletal pain (low back, neck/shoulder, and/or arm/hand pain; n = 8319) from the Danish Work Environment Cohort Study were included. Long-term sickness absence data were obtained from the Danish Register for Evaluation and Marginalization (DREAM). Time-to-event analyses (cox regression) controlled for various confounders estimated the association between fear avoidance beliefs (very low, low, moderate [reference category], high, and very high) at baseline and long-term sickness absence (LTSA; ≥6 consecutive weeks) during a 2-year follow-up.

Results

During the 2-year follow-up, 10.2% of the workers experienced long-term sickness absence. In the fully adjusted model, very high-level fear avoidance increased the risk of LTSA with hazard ratio (HR) of 1.48 (95% CI 1.15-1.90). Similar results were seen analyses stratified for occupational physical activity, i.e., sedentary workers (HR 1.72 (95% CI 1.04-2.83)) and physically active workers (HR 1.48 (95% CI 1.10-2.01)).

Conclusion

A very high level of fear avoidance is a risk factor for long-term sickness absence among workers with musculoskeletal pain regardless of the level of occupational physical activity. Future interventions should target fear avoidance beliefs through information and campaigns about the benefits of staying active when having musculoskeletal pain.