Staying at work with musculoskeletal pain: What supporting resources do people need?

Abstract

Introduction Maintaining productive employment can be challenging for people with ongoing low back pain (LBP) or neck pain (NP) due to pain, function and participation sequelae. Resources and information to support them staying at work may be beneficial, although preferences for the nature and accessibility of resources remain uncertain. The current study aimed to explore the work experiences and information‐seeking behaviours of employed individuals with ongoing LBP or NP, to support them in staying at work. Method Semi‐structured interviews were undertaken with 40 participants currently employed with ongoing LBP or NP. The interview schedule covered participants' experience of managing their LBP or NP at work, resources sought to assist with finding or maintaining employment, and where they accessed these resources. Interviews were recorded and analysed using thematic analysis. Results Participants were employed in a wide range of job types and most reported a decrease in productivity. Five key themes were identified: (1) the meaning of work, (2) to disclose or not, (3) information seeking, (4) gaps in resources, (5) trusted sources. Work was highly valued by participants, despite the challenges in maintaining employment with ongoing LBP or NP. To support staying at work a range of information was sought by participants, but challenges in accessing reputable resources and trusting the sources were identified as key issues. Conclusion Opportunities exist for easily accessible, multi‐level information from trustworthy sources targeted at the employer organisations, individuals and clinicians to support people in staying at work with ongoing LBP or NP.

How do Employees with Chronic Musculoskeletal Disorders Experience the Management of Their Condition in the Workplace? A Metasynthesis

“…Findings highlighted a positive input from the healthcare professionals [HCPs], i.e. physiotherapist, occupational therapist [30,31,[33][34][35]. It is important to note that some study participants were employees participating in RTW programs and had access to an on-site occupational health service [OHS] or worked in organisations that offered private healthcare services.…”

“…Details about the participants' characteristics were also missing. For example, sample size decisions were not justified by the authors except in two studies [31,34] and the participant age range varied between over 18 [31], over 20 [30,[32][33][34] over 30 [35,36] and over 50 [37]. Only two studies [31,35] provided detailed information about the participant recruitment process and interview preparation.…”

“…For example, sample size decisions were not justified by the authors except in two studies [31,34] and the participant age range varied between over 18 [31], over 20 [30,[32][33][34] over 30 [35,36] and over 50 [37]. Only two studies [31,35] provided detailed information about the participant recruitment process and interview preparation. Participants' quotes were limited or missing in three studies [30,33,37] which undermined the 'credibility' of the interpretation and representation of the findings.…”

“…However due to the heterogeneity of the included studies the size of the organisation and the nature of the job cannot be discussed. Employees expressed, that in their experience, employers lacked knowledge and information or resources to support the development of improved working conditions [31]. Some authors reported resistance from employers when employees requested flexible work hours and workplace modifications [32,34].…”

“…It was clearly important to employees that managers could recognise the impact of a CMSD and who lacked interest, experience or understanding of CMSDs were perceived to have a negative impact on how employees managed the condition, e.g. by ignoring useful advice provided by OHS or not knowing where to find appropriate resources [29,31,32,36,41].…”