Prevention of Work Absence Due to Back Pain: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ta KT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10871117 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Prevention of Work Absence Due to Back Pain: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Ta Kim-Ngan Thi KT Bai Chyi-Huey CH Chuang Kai-Jen KJ
European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education 20231210 12
This paper reviewed the most effective strategies for preventing work absence due to back pain (BP) and BP episodes (the number of people reporting back pain). We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prevention strategies for BP from previous meta-analyses, PubMed, CENTRAL, and Embase and conducted a network meta-analysis. Thirteen RCTs (2033 participants) were included. Low- to high-quality evidence showed that exercise combined with ergonomics, education, back belts, and education c ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundA considerable proportion of work absence is attributed to back pain, however prospective studies in working populations with back pain are variable in setting and design, and a quantitative summary of current evidence is lacking.ObjectiveTo investigate the extent to which differences in setting, country, sampling procedures and methods for data collection are responsible for variation in estimates of work absence and return to work.MethodsSystematic searches of seven bibliographic databases. Inclusion criteria were: adults in paid employment, with back pain, work absence or return to work during follow-up had been reported. Random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis was carried out to provide summary estimates of work absence and return to work rates.Results45 studies were identified for inclusion in the review; 34 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled estimate for the occurrence of work absence in workers with back pain was 15.5% (95% CI 9.8% to 23.6%, n=17 studies, I(2) 98.1%) in studies with follow-up periods of ≤6 months. The pooled estimate for the proportion of people with back pain returning to work was 68.2% (95% CI 54.8% to 79.1%, n=13, I(2) 99.2%), 85.6% (95% CI 78.2% to 90.7%, n=13, I(2) 98.7%) and 93.3% (95% CI 84.0% to 94.7%, n=10, I(2) 99%), at 1 month, 1-6 months and ≥6 months, respectively. Differences in setting, risk of participation bias and method of assessing work absence explained some of the heterogeneity.ConclusionsPooled estimates suggest high return to work rates, with wide variation in estimates of return to work only partly explained by a priori defined study-level variables. The estimated 32% not back at work at 1 month are at a crucial point for intervention to prevent long term work absence.
| S-EPMC4033140 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBack pain is a widespread health problem that accounts for substantial disability and high costs. The workplace is considered to critically affect the occurrence and persistence of back pain and therefore offers an important opportunity for preventive interventions. Various work-related intervention strategies including both single- and multicomponent interventions have been developed and evaluated so far. To determine their effectiveness, a method of analysis is needed that particularly meets the challenges of the multidimensionality and diversity of these interventions. This planned systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of different work-related interventions for preventing non-specific back pain in people within a formal employment-related context.MethodsWe will search the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and Academic Search Premier from their inception onwards, as well as additional sources. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs will be considered if they (1) include people within a formal employment-related context, (2) include people without back pain or mixed samples (i.e., people with and without back pain), (3) compare one or more work-related preventive intervention(s) to a control condition, and (4) assess non-specific back pain (incidence or/and pain intensity), ability to work (numbers of participants or/and numbers of days absent from work), intervention-related adverse events or/and self-reported satisfaction with the intervention. Random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate. We will calculate summary effect sizes for each comparison of interventions and rank interventions according to their P scores. If feasible, we will conduct additional component network meta-analyses. We plan to conduct subgroup analyses for job exposure, intervention duration, baseline back pain, different localizations of back pain, and gender. Risk of bias will be assessed using RoB 2 and the certainty of the evidence will be rated using the GRADE approach.DiscussionThis systematic review aims to identify work-related intervention strategies as well as components within work-related interventions that are effective for preventing back pain. We expect the results to provide guidance for selecting the most promising interventions and foster the purposeful use of resources. Additionally, they may inform the development and implementation of work-related interventions as well as the design of future research in this field.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021232469.
| S-EPMC8406587 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this narrative systematic review was to summarise prognostic factors for return to work (RTW) among people with long-term neck/shoulder or back pain.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed through three databases (Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO) for studies published until February 2016. Only observational studies of people on work absence (≥2 weeks) due to neck/shoulder or back pain were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using guidelines for assessing quality in prognostic studies on the basis of Framework of Potential Biases. Factors found in the included studies were grouped into categories based on similarities and then labelled according to the aspects covered by the factors in the category.ResultsNine longitudinal prospective cohort studies and one retrospective study fulfilled the inclusion criteria. From these, five categories of factors were extracted. Our findings indicate that recovery beliefs, health-related factors and work capacity are important for RTW among people with long-term neck or back pain. We did not find support for workplace factors and behaviour being predictive of RTW.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that recovery beliefs, perceived health and work capacity may be important targets of intervention for people with long-term neck or back pain. However, more high-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm the results and improve our understanding of what is needed to facilitate RTW in this population.
| S-EPMC5734441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a leading reason for opioid use and a closer examination of opioid use and productivity losses among these patients is needed. We identify opioid use trajectories using a group-based trajectory model (GBTM) and estimate productivity losses across the trajectories.MethodsPatients diagnosed with LBP in Swedish specialty care between 2011 and 2015, between the ages of 20 and 60, were included. Two GBTMs were estimated on monthly opioid use (converted to oral morphine equivalents) during the two 12-month periods preceding and following diagnosis. Productivity losses were estimated using the human-capital approach.ResultsIn total, 147,035 patients were included. The mean age at diagnosis was 43 years of age and 49% of the patients were male. A qualitative assessment of the identified groups in the GBTM models was made based on the patterns of opioid use. We chose three pre-diagnosis groups characterized as 'Pre-low' (N = 109,492), 'Pre-increase' (N = 27,336) and 'Pre-high' (N = 10,207). Similarly, four post-diagnosis groups were chosen and characterized as 'Post-low' (N = 73,287), 'Post-decrease' (N = 39,446), 'Post-moderate' (N = 20,001) and 'Post-high' (N = 13,595). Only 50% of the patients in the 'Pre-high' group were in the 'Post-high' group. The total productivity losses by the pre-diagnosis groups were more than 2.7 billion Euros over the total 6-year study period.ConclusionThis study highlights how patients with LBP and high use of opioids are highly correlated before and after diagnosis. Patients with high use of opioids also exhibit high work absence and productivity losses.Significance statementThis was the first study to estimate trajectories of opioids in the two time periods before and after a diagnosis of low back pain. For the first time, productivity losses were also estimated across the identified opioid use trajectories.
| S-EPMC11610708 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The influence of pain catastrophizing, kinesiophobia and fear-avoidance attitudes towards non-specific low-back pain has been scarcely studied in an occupational insurance provider context. The objective of this work is to ascertain the relationship between these psychosocial variables with work absence, its duration and the disability of subjects with work-related low back pain. This is a descriptive observational methodological strategy. All patients with work-related non-specific low back pain who attended to an occupational health hospital during the study period were included consecutively. Clinical variables of kinesiophobia, pain catastrophizing, fear-avoidance attitudes, disability and pain were collected; sociodemographic variables of sex, age, type of work, educational level, occupational status and duration in days of work absence were recorded. Kinesiophobia (b = 1.43, P = 0.011, r = 0.333), fear-avoidance beliefs in its global dimension (b = 0.910, P = 0.014, r = 0.321), fear-avoidance beliefs in its work dimension (b = 1.255, P = 0.016, r = 0.321) and pain catastrophizing (b = 0.997, P = 0.013, r = 0.340) show individual association with the duration of sickness absence. Kinesiophobia (b = 0.821, P = 0.011, r = 0.30) and fear-avoidance beliefs (b = 1.760, P = 0.016, r = 0.28) are associated with disability (Kinesiophobia, b = 0.880, P = 0.045, r = 0.26; Fear-avoidance beliefs, b = 0.724, P = 0.010, r = 0.34). Kinesiophobia, fear-avoidance beliefs and pain catastrophizing are related to an increase in the duration of work absence and disability in patients with back pain in an occupational insurance provider context.
| S-EPMC7728279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate if self-reported high physical demand at work, objective physical workload using a job exposure matrix (JEM) and fear-avoidance beliefs are associated with reported sick leave in the previous year in persons with low back pain (LBP). Second, to investigate if the effects of fear-avoidance and self-reported high physical demand at work on sick leave are modified by the objective physical workloads.SettingsParticipants were recruited from general practice and by advertisement in a local newspaper.Participants305participants with a current period of 2-4 weeks LBP and self-reported difficulty in maintaining physically demanding jobs due to LBP were interviewed, clinically examined and had an MRI at baseline.Main outcome measuresIndependent variables were high fear-avoidance, self-reported high physical demand at work and objective measures of physical workloads (JEM). Outcome was self-reported sick leave due to LBP in the previous year. Logistic regression and tests for interaction were used to identify risk factors and modifiers for the association with self-reported sick leave.ResultsSelf-reported physically demanding work and high fear-avoidance were significantly associated with prior sick leave due to LBP in the previous year with OR 1.75 95% CI (1.10 to 2.75) and 2.75 95% CI (1.61to 4.84), respectively. No objective physical workloads had significant associations. There was no modifying effect of objective physical workloads on the association between self-reported physical demand at work/high fear-avoidance and sick leave.ConclusionsOccupational interventions to reduce sick leave due to LBP may have to focus more on those with high self-reported physical demands and high fear-avoidance, and less on individuals with the objectively highest physical workload.Trial registration numberNCT02015572; Post-results.
| S-EPMC6537989 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of psychological interventions for chronic low back pain.DesignSystematic review with network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and CINAHL from database inception to 31 January 2021.Eligibility criteria for study selectionRandomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions with any comparison intervention in adults with chronic, non-specific low back pain. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and confidence in the evidence. Primary outcomes were physical function and pain intensity. A random effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach was performed at post-intervention (from the end of treatment to <2 months post-intervention); and at short term (≥2 to <6 months post-intervention), mid-term (≥6 to <12 months post-intervention), and long term follow-up (≥12 months post-intervention). Physiotherapy care was the reference comparison intervention. The design-by-treatment interaction model was used to assess global inconsistency and the Bucher method was used to assess local inconsistency.Results97 randomised controlled trials involving 13 136 participants and 17 treatment nodes were included. Inconsistency was detected at short term and mid-term follow-up for physical function, and short term follow-up for pain intensity, and were resolved through sensitivity analyses. For physical function, cognitive behavioural therapy (standardised mean difference 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.44), and pain education (0.62, 0.08 to 1.17), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important improvements at post-intervention (moderate quality evidence). The most sustainable effects of treatment for improving physical function were reported with pain education delivered with physiotherapy care, at least until mid-term follow-up (0.63, 0.25 to 1.00; low quality evidence). No studies investigated the long term effectiveness of pain education delivered with physiotherapy care. For pain intensity, behavioural therapy (1.08, 0.22 to 1.94), cognitive behavioural therapy (0.92, 0.43 to 1.42), and pain education (0.91, 0.37 to 1.45), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important effects at post-intervention (low to moderate quality evidence). Only behavioural therapy delivered with physiotherapy care maintained clinically important effects on reducing pain intensity until mid-term follow-up (1.01, 0.41 to 1.60; high quality evidence).ConclusionsFor people with chronic, non-specific low back pain, psychological interventions are most effective when delivered in conjunction with physiotherapy care (mainly structured exercise). Pain education programmes (low to moderate quality evidence) and behavioural therapy (low to high quality evidence) result in the most sustainable effects of treatment; however, uncertainty remains as to their long term effectiveness. Although inconsistency was detected, potential sources were identified and resolved.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019138074.
| S-EPMC8965745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic pain (pain > 3 months) is a disabling condition affecting around one fifth of the population. Chronic pain significantly affects a person's psychological and physical health and often interferes with the ability to work. It is one of the most common reasons for extended sick leave and persons with chronic pain often have difficulties returning to work. Interpreting the experiences of currently available is necessary in order to facilitate a return to working life. Therefore, this study aimed to describe and interpret the meaning of support during the return-to-work process for persons on sick leave due to chronic pain.MethodA qualitative interview study was conducted with 14 participants (12 women and 2 men) who experienced sick leave due to chronic pain. The participants were recruited through patient organizations focusing on pain or pain-related conditions. Collected data was analyzed using a phenomenological hermeneutical approach.ResultsHave my back as I get back to work was the theme of the analysis, along with six subthemes. Being able to work was important for the participants. However, they often experienced returning to work was a battle for support, dealing with fragmentized backing from the involved stakeholders. Participants with access to collaborative support involving competent care, recognition and the possibility to influence their work felt valuable and capable as persons and workers. Thus, they were provided conditions allowing a successful re-entry into the workplace.ConclusionsOur findings contribute to an enhanced understanding of the importance of stakeholder support in persons with chronic pain re-entering the workplace after an extended break due to sick leave. Through an inclusive, collaborative and flexible approach involving all stakeholders working towards the same goal, a person with chronic pain can feel supported in developing and cultivating the capabilities necessary to manage life and work.
| S-EPMC11498695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeChronic low back pain (CLBP) is an aging and public health issue that is a leading cause of disability worldwide and has a significant economic impact on a global scale. Treatments for CLBP are varied, and there is currently no study with high-quality evidence to show which treatment works best. Exercise therapy has the characteristics of minor harm, low cost, and convenient implementation. It has become a mainstream treatment method in clinics for chronic low back pain. However, there is insufficient evidence on which specific exercise regimen is more effective for chronic non-specific low back pain. This network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of different exercise therapies on chronic low back pain and provide a reference for exercise regimens in CLBP patients.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to 10 May 2022. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used for selection. We collected information from studies to compare the effects of 20 exercise interventions on patients with chronic low back pain.ResultsThis study included 75 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 5,254 participants. Network meta-analysis results showed that tai chi [standardized mean difference (SMD), -2.11; 95% CI, -3.62 to -0.61], yoga (SMD, -1.76; 95% CI -2.72 to -0.81), Pilates exercise (SMD, -1.52; 95% CI, -2.68, to -0.36), and sling exercise (SMD, -1.19; 95% CI, -2.07 to -0.30) showed a better pain improvement than conventional rehabilitation. Tai chi (SMD, -2.42; 95% CI, -3.81 to -1.03) and yoga (SMD, -2.07; 95% CI, -2.80 to -1.34) showed a better pain improvement than no intervention provided. Yoga (SMD, -1.72; 95% CI, -2.91 to -0.53) and core or stabilization exercises (SMD, -1.04; 95% CI, -1.80 to -0.28) showed a better physical function improvement than conventional rehabilitation. Yoga (SMD, -1.81; 95% CI, -2.78 to -0.83) and core or stabilization exercises (SMD, -1.13; 95% CI, -1.66 to -0.59) showed a better physical function improvement than no intervention provided.ConclusionCompared with conventional rehabilitation and no intervention provided, tai chi, toga, Pilates exercise, sling exercise, motor control exercise, and core or stabilization exercises significantly improved CLBP in patients. Compared with conventional rehabilitation and no intervention provided, yoga and core or stabilization exercises were statistically significant in improving physical function in patients with CLBP. Due to the limitations of the quality and quantity of the included studies, it is difficult to make a definitive recommendation before more large-scale and high-quality RCTs are conducted.
| S-EPMC10687566 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow back pain has become a globally challenging health problem, and about 90% of cases are nonspecific. Due to the risks associated with opioid use and the limited effectiveness of drug treatment, acupuncture and other non-drug methods have become the first-line treatment for this disease. However, the best acupuncture method has not yet been determined. In this study, the effects of different acupuncture methods on chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) were compared by network meta-analysis, aiming at identifying the best option and providing a basis for precise treatment of CNLBP.MethodsClinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on acupuncture in the treatment of NSLBP were searched in eight databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Sinomed, CNKI, Wanfang Data and VIP from the inception of databases to January 21, 2024. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0) and Stata 15.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, Texas, USA) were used to evaluate the literature quality and meta-analysis, and the evidence quality was assessed based on GRADE guidelines. This systematic review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.ResultsA total of 27 articles were included, involving 2579 patients. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that the top three treatment schemes were warm needle acupuncture, intensive silver needle therapy and meridian-sinew theory-based treatment. In terms of relieving pain, the top three treatments were electrical warm needling, intensive silver needle therapy and warm needle acupuncture. In improving mobility, the top three were meridian-sinew theory-based treatment, routine acupuncture and electroacupuncture.ConclusionFor CNLBP patients, warm needle acupuncture, electrical warm needling and meridian-sinew theory-based treatment are mainly recommended. If patients have significant pain, electroacupuncture is strongly suggested. On the contrary, for patients with decreased joint mobility, meridian-sinew theory-based treatment is advocated.
| S-EPMC11440812 | biostudies-literature