Increasing Days at Work Using Function-Centered Rehabilitation in Nonacute Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Kool, Jan; Oesch, Peter; Bachmann, Stefan; Knuesel, Otto; Dierkes, Judith G.; Russo, Mirella; Bie, Rob A. de; Brandt, Piet A. van den

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2004.10.044

Cited by 56 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to the expectations, the standardised response mean was smaller for the function-centred treatment than the pain-centred treatment. A possible explanation is that the information provided in the pain-centred treatment group, namely to stop activities if pain was provoked, was more powerful than the positive reinforcement provided within the function-centred treatment [16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eligible were patients with non-acute NSLBP, between 20 and 55 years of age, presenting with at least 6 weeks of sick leave during the previous 6 months, who were referred to the Rehabilitationsklinik Valens (Switzerland) for inpatient rehabilitation [16,17]. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Canton of St. Gallen, Switzerland (EKSG 03/035).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patients in the function-centred treatment group (n = 84) showed at discharge an increase in perceived self-efficacy with a mean change score of 5.9 (SD 32.5) resulting in a standardised response mean of 0.18, while the patients in the pain-centred treatment group (n = 85) showed a decrease in perceived self-efficacy with a mean change score of -7.4 (SD 24.4) resulting in a standardised response mean of -0.31 [16].…”

Section: Responsivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Perceived functional ability assessed with the spinal function sort: is it valid for European rehabilitation settings in patients with non-specific non-acute low back pain?

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study involving 170 patients suffering from non-specific low back pain was to test the validity of the spinal function sort (SFS) in a European rehabilitation setting. The SFS, a picture-based questionnaire, assesses perceived functional ability of work tasks involving the spine. All measurements were taken by a blinded research assistant; work status was assessed with questionnaires. Our study demonstrated a high internal consistency shown by a Cronbach's alpha of 0.98, reasonable evidence for unidimensionality, spearman correlations of [0.6 with work activities, and discriminating power for work status at 3 and 12 months by ROC curve analysis (area under curve = 0.760 (95% CI 0.689-0.822), respectively, 0.801 (95% CI 0.731-0.859). The standardised response mean within the two treatment groups was 0.18 and -0.31. As a result, we conclude that the perceived functional ability for work tasks can be validly assessed with the SFS in a European rehabilitation setting in patients with non-specific low back pain, and is predictive for future work status.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Responsivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perceived functional ability assessed with the spinal function sort: is it valid for European rehabilitation settings in patients with non-specific non-acute low back pain?

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 In addition, function-focused treatment has been shown to be more effective than pain-focused treatment. 15 The effect of the clinical management might also have exceeded the effect of specific exercises performed in response to pain. Furthermore, patients sick-listed because of LBP may differ from other patients with LBP.…”

Section: Discussion Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Pain Response Classification Does Not Predict Long-Term Outcome in Patients With Low Back Pain Who Are Sick-Listed

Christiansen¹,

Larsen²,

Jensen³

et al. 2010

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low back pain (LBP) is a common disorder and one of the most frequent reasons for seeking healthcare. 33 Most LBP episodes are self-limiting, but a small percentage of people with LBP develop recurrent or chronic pain and disability. 31 Recurrent and chronic LBP accounts for a substantial proportion of all absence from work. 5 The longer the sick-listing, the more difficult 4 Head of Department, Department of Clinical Social Medicine and Rehabilitation, Institute of Public Health, Aarhus University, Arhus, Denmark. This study is part of a randomized clinical trial financed by the municipalities of Silkeborg, Favrskov, and Skanderborg, Denmark and the Central Denmark Region. The present part of the study was also supported by a grant from the Research Foundation of Danish Physiotherapists. The study was discussed with The Regional Research Ethics Committee, which determined that formal ethical approval was not required. All participants signed informed consent, and the study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (No. -41-1278 t BaCKGrOund: Recurrent and chronic LBP accounts for a substantial proportion of all absence from work. In predicting outcome in patients with LBP, psychosocial factors are thought to play an important role, while findings from clinical examination seem to be of more limited value. Mechanical evaluation, using repeated end range spinal movements that result in specific pain responses, has been shown to be of some value.t MethOds: The study included 351 patients sick-listed because of LBP with or without sciatica. Prior to clinical examination, the patients completed a comprehensive questionnaire including questions on pain, function, and psychosocial factors. The physiotherapy examination included a standardized mechanical evaluation. Patients were classified into 3 groups according to their pain response: centralization, peripheralization, or no response. Outcomes were obtained by national register data, medical records, and a postal questionnaire at 1 year.t resuLts: At 1-year follow-up, 65% of the patients had returned to work. All pain response groups showed significant and clinically important improvements in both pain and disability. No significant differences were found between pain response groups in any outcome measure. Results remained unchanged after adjustment for potential confounders.t COnCLusiOn: The prognostic value of pain response classification seems limited in patients sick-listed from work because of LBP.t LeVeL OF eVidenCe: Prognosis, level 1b.

show abstract

“…7 During a 3-week inpatient rehabilitation program, patients received either function-centered treatment (FCT) or pain-centered treatment (PCT). We analyzed work absenteeism, and the primary outcome was the number of work days in the follow-up year.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Function-Centered Rehabilitation Increases Work Days in Patients With Nonacute Nonspecific Low Back Pain: 1-Year Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial

Kool

Bachmann

Oesch

et al. 2007

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing Days at Work Using Function-Centered Rehabilitation in Nonacute Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Cited by 56 publications

References 30 publications

Perceived functional ability assessed with the spinal function sort: is it valid for European rehabilitation settings in patients with non-specific non-acute low back pain?

Perceived functional ability assessed with the spinal function sort: is it valid for European rehabilitation settings in patients with non-specific non-acute low back pain?

Pain Response Classification Does Not Predict Long-Term Outcome in Patients With Low Back Pain Who Are Sick-Listed

Function-Centered Rehabilitation Increases Work Days in Patients With Nonacute Nonspecific Low Back Pain: 1-Year Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About