Low-Back Pain Ratings for Lifetime, 1-Month Period, and Point Prevalences in a Large Occupational Population

Thiese, Matthew S.; Hegmann, Kurt T.; Wood, Eric M.; Garg, Arun; Moore, James S.; Kapellusch, Jay; Foster, James C.; Greene, Tom; Stoddard, Greg; Biggs, Jeremy; Team, BackWorks Study

doi:10.1177/0018720813493641

Cited by 35 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Assuming an intra-cluster correlation coefficient of 1.2 this would inflate the sample size to 130. With a detected 1-month prevalence of LBP (self-report) of 44–63% in populations of workers with physically demanding jobs [51, 52] and to allow for some degree of dropouts, we decided to include approximately 250 participants in each group.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is common in the population and multifactorial in nature, often involving negative consequences. Reassuring information to improve coping is recommended for reducing the negative consequences of LBP. Adding a simple non-threatening explanation for the pain (temporary muscular dysfunction) has been successful at altering beliefs and behavior when delivered with other intervention elements. This study investigates the isolated effect of this specific information on future occupational behavior outcomes when delivered to the workforce.DesignA cluster-randomized controlled trial.MethodsPublically employed workers (n = 505) from 11 Danish municipality centers were randomized at center-level (cluster) to either intervention (two 1-hour group-based talks at the workplace) or control. The talks provided reassuring information together with a simple non-threatening explanation for LBP—the ‘functional-disturbance’-model. Data collections took place monthly over a 1-year period using text message tracking (SMS). Primary outcomes were self-reported days of cutting down usual activities and work participation. Secondary outcomes were self-reported back beliefs, work ability, number of healthcare visits, bothersomeness, restricted activity, use of pain medication, and sadness/depression.ResultsThere was no between-group difference in the development of LBP during follow-up. Cumulative logistic regression analyses showed no between-group difference on days of cutting down activities, but increased odds for more days of work participation in the intervention group (OR = 1.83 95% CI: 1.08–3.12). Furthermore, the intervention group was more likely to report: higher work ability, reduced visits to healthcare professionals, lower bothersomeness, lower levels of sadness/depression, and positive back beliefs.ConclusionReassuring information involving a simple non-threatening explanation for LBP significantly increased the odds for days of work participation and higher work ability among workers who went on to experience LBP during the 12-month follow-up. Our results confirm the potential for public-health education for LBP, and add to the discussion of simple versus multidisciplinary interventions.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Excessive mechanical loads on the trunk, applied intermittently or repetitively over time, are however believed to play a causative role in associated injuries, degeneration and LBP. Numerous epidemiological investigations relating occupational LBP to physical activities corroborate the role of biomechanical risk factors (Hoogendoorn et al, 2000;Manchikanti, 2000;Thiese et al, 2014;Van Nieuwenhuyse et al, 2004). While both task-related (e.g., external trunk loading, posture and lift characteristics) and personal-related (e.g., gender, age, body weight and height) parameters have been indicated in onset or progress of LBP, much less attention has been focused on the personal-related factors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of body weight on spinal loads in various activities: A personalized biomechanical modeling approach

Hajihosseinali

Arjmand

Shirazi‐Adl

2015

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Limitations in LBP research include: i) subjective and inconsistent definitions of LBP regarding location and pain intensity[18–22], ii) limited use of objective outcome measures as compared to the occurrence of purely subjective outcomes[19–21, 23], iii) infrequent reporting of multiple LBP prevalence measures from the same population to allow for comparability[11, 20, 21, 23, 24], iv) lack of detailed LBP anatomical location descriptions[20–22], and v) rarely reported pain ratings[20, 22, 24]. Conflicting results in the epidemiological literature have led to a recent consensus statement that recommended inclusion of intensity and duration measures in case definitions of LBP[22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of low back pain by anatomic location and intensity in an occupational population

Thiese

Hegmann

Wood

et al. 2014

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLow Back Pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem, with variation in prevalence. Epidemiological reports of rating of pain intensity and location within the low back area are rare. The objective is to describe LBP in a large, multi-center, occupational cohort detailing both point and 1-month period prevalence of LBP by location and intensity measures at baseline.MethodsIn this cross-sectional report from a prospective cohort study, 828 participants were workers enrolled from 30 facilities performing a variety of manual material handling tasks. All participants underwent a structured interview detailing pain rating and location. Symptoms in the lower extremities, demographic and other data were collected. Body mass indices were measured. Outcomes are pain rating (0–10) in five defined lumbar back areas (i) LBP in the past month and (ii) LBP on the day of enrollment. Pain ratings were reported on a 0–10 scale and subsequently collapsed with ratings of 1–3, 4–6 and 7–10 classified as low, medium and high respectively.Results172 (20.8%) and 364 (44.0%) of the 828 participants reported pain on the day of enrollment or within the past month, respectively. The most common area of LBP was in the immediate paraspinal area with 130 (75.6%) participants with point prevalence LBP and 278 (77.4%) with 1-month period prevalence reported having LBP in the immediate paraspinal area. Among those 364 reporting 1-month period prevalence pain, ratings varied widely with 116 (31.9%) reporting ratings classified as low, 170 (46.7%) medium and 78 (21.4%) providing high pain ratings in any location. Among the 278 reporting 1-month period prevalence pain in the immediate paraspinal area, 89 (32.0%) reported ratings classified as low, 129 (46.4%), medium and 60 (21.6%) high pain ratings.ConclusionsPain ratings varied widely, however less variability was seen in pain location, with immediate paraspinal region being the most common. Variations may suggest different etiological factors related to LBP. Aggregation of different locations of pain or different intensities of pain into one binary classification of LBP may result in loss of information which may potentially be useful in prevention or treatment of LBP.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-283) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Low-Back Pain Ratings for Lifetime, 1-Month Period, and Point Prevalences in a Large Occupational Population

Cited by 35 publications

References 33 publications

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

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

Effect of body weight on spinal loads in various activities: A personalized biomechanical modeling approach

Prevalence of low back pain by anatomic location and intensity in an occupational population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About