Documents back disorders 185 results

"Objective The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to investigate the effectiveness of the Stay@Work participatory ergonomics (PE) program to prevent low-back and neck pain. Methods A total of 37 departments were randomly allocated to either the intervention (PE) or control group (no PE). During a six-hour meeting, working groups followed the PE steps and composed and prioritized ergonomic measures aimed at preventing low-back and neck pain. Subsequently, working groups were requested to implement the ergonomic measures in the departments. The primary outcomes were low-back and neck pain prevalence and secondary outcomes were pain intensity and duration. Data were collected by questionnaires at baseline, and after 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-months follow-up. Additionally, the course of low-back and neck pain (transitions from no symptoms to symptoms and from symptoms to no symptoms) was modeled. Results The randomization procedure resulted in 19 intervention departments (N=1472 workers) and 18 control departments (N=1575 workers). After 12 months, the intervention was not more effective than the control group in reducing the prevalence of low-back and neck pain or reducing pain intensity and duration. PE did not increase the probability of preventing low-back pain [odds ratio (OR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.97–1.57) or neck pain (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74–1.40). However, PE increased the probability of recovering from low-back pain (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01–1.96), but not from neck pain (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72–1.26).Conclusion PE neither reduced low-back and neck pain prevalence nor pain intensity and duration nor was it effective in the prevention of low-back and neck pain or the recovery from neck pain. However, PE was more effective in the recovery from low-back pain."

The present case-control study identified the relative contribution of demographic, physical demand, physical fitness as well as occupational and individual psychosocial variables to back-related work disability in the US Army. Soldiers diagnosed with a lumbosacral strain and medically discharged from the Army (n=174) were compared with non-disabled controls (n=173). Data were obtained from the US Army Health Risk Appraisal (HRA). For cases, these data predated disability determination by 1 to 3 years. For controls, the HRA was completed during the same time period. Significant predictors of back disability were: age, lower rank, infrequent aerobic exercise, higher work stress, worries and lower social support.

"Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine the occupational factors that cause workers to take sick leave.

Methods Twice, with a 24-month interval, 117 white- and 189 blue-collar employees from 2 metal industry companies completed a questionnaire on recurrent low-back pain and exposure to potential risk factors (biomechanical loads, physical environment, psychosocial factors) at work. Sick leave was monitored for the period between the questionnaires.

Results Low-back pain was predicted by exposure to harmful biomechanical loads among both white- and blue-collar workers [odds ratio (OR) 4.1 and 4.7, respectively), stress among white-collar workers (OR 2.4), and draft among blue-collar workers (OR 2.3). The take-up of sick leave was predicted by exposure to harmful biomechanical loads [rate ratio (RR) 1.7]; for sick leaves attributed to low-back pain the rate ratio was 3.1. Lack of recognition and respect at work predicted sick-leave attributed to low-back pain (RR 2.0), but not to other disorders.

Conclusion Recurrent low-back pain is preceded by reports of harmful biomechanical loads at work among white- and blue-collar workers, by stress among white-collar workers and by draft among blue-collar workers. The environmental and psychosocial factors under study did not modify the relation between biomechanical loads and the recurrent low-back pain. Sick leave attributed to back disorders is preceded by exposure to biomechanical loads at work and by a lack of recognition and respect at work among blue-collar workers. Biomechanical loading seems to be the most important occupational factor predicting both recurrent low-back pain and sick leave attributed to back disorders. Lack of recognition and respect at work appear to affect sick leave attributed to back disorders."

"OBJECTIVES:
Several studies have reported male-female differences in the prevalence of symptoms of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSD), some arising from workplace exposure differences. The objective of this paper was to compare two strategies analyzing a single dataset for the relationships between risk factors and MSD in a population-based sample with a wide range of exposures.
METHODS:
The 1998 Québec Health and Social Survey surveyed 11 735 respondents in paid work and reported "significant" musculoskeletal pain in 11 body regions during the previous 12 months and a range of personal, physical, and psychosocial risk factors. Five studies concerning risk factors for four musculoskeletal outcomes were carried out on these data. Each included analyses with multiple logistic regression (MLR) performed separately for women, men, and the total study population. The results from these gender-stratified and unstratified analyses were compared.
RESULTS:
In the unstratified MLR models, gender was significantly associated with musculoskeletal pain in the neck and lower extremities, but not with low-back pain. The gender-stratified MLR models identified significant associations between each specific musculoskeletal outcome and a variety of personal characteristics and physical and psychosocial workplace exposures for each gender. Most of the associations, if present for one gender, were also found in the total population. But several risk factors present for only one gender could be detected only in a stratified analysis, whereas the unstratified analysis added little information.
CONCLUSIONS:
Stratifying analyses by gender is necessary if a full range of associations between exposures and MSD is to be detected and understood."

"Objective: Numerous studies has shown that regular physical exercise can reduce musculoskeletal pain, but the optimal setting to achieve high adherence and effectiveness remains unknown. This study investigated the effect of workplace versus home-based physical exercise on musculoskeletal pain among healthcare workers.Methods: The randomized controlled trial (RCT) comprised 200 female healthcare workers from 18 departments at 3 hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated at the cluster level to ten weeks of: (i) workplace physical exercise (WORK) performed during working hours for 5×10 minutes per week and up to 5 group-based coaching sessions on motivation for regular physical exercise, or (ii) home-based physical exercise (HOME) performed during leisure time for 5×10 minutes per week. Both groups received ergonomic counseling on patient handling and use of lifting aides. Average pain intensity (0–10 scale) in the low back and neck/shoulder was the primary outcome.Results: Per week, 2.2 (SD 1.1) and 1.0 (SD 1.2) training sessions were performed in WORK and HOME groups, respectively. Pain intensity, back muscle strength and use of analgesics improved more following WORK than HOME (P<0.05). Between-group differences at follow-up (WORK versus HOME) was -0.7 points for pain intensity [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -1.0– -0.3], 5.5 Nm for back muscle strength (95% CI 2.0–9.0), and -0.4 days per week for use of analgesics (95% CI -0.7– -0.2). The effect size for between-group differences in pain intensity was small (Cohen's d=0.31).Conclusions: Workplace physical exercise is more effective than home-based exercise in reducing musculoskeletal pain, increasing muscle strength and reducing the use of analgesics among healthcare workers."

"Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the risk of persistent low-back pain (LBP) based on the number of patient-handling activities among female healthcare workers with no LBP and those with sub-chronic LBP at baseline.Method Female healthcare workers in the eldercare services answered a questionnaire about the number of patient-handling activities (<1, 1–2, 3–10, >10 per day) and days with LBP in 2005. We prospectively investigated the odds ratio (OR) for developing persistent (>30 days in the past 12 months) LBP in 2006 from the frequency of patient-handling activities using multi-adjusted logistic regression analysis among female healthcare workers without LBP (0 days in the past 12 months) (N=1544) and with sub-chronic LBP (1–30 days in the past 12 months) (N=2294) in 2005. Results Among female healthcare workers with sub-chronic LBP at baseline, the multi-adjusted OR for developing persistent LBP was 1.04 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.71–1.52] for those with 1–2 activities, 1.29 (95% CI 0.91–1.83) for those with 3–10 activities, and 1.61 (95% CI 1.07–2.42) for those with >10 patient-handling activities per day (P=0.01 for trend), referencing those not performing patient-handling activities. Among female healthcare workers without LBP at baseline, we did not find an increased risk for developing persistent LBP within one year resulting from performing several patient-handling activities. Conclusion Preventive initiatives for persistent LBP may aim to keep the number of patient-handling activities below ten per day among healthcare workers with sub-chronic LBP."

"This study aimed at developing a model for determining the work-relatedness of low-back pain for a worker with low-back pain using both a personal exposure profile for well-established risk factors and the probability of low-back pain if the worker were unexposed to these factors.The model is the first that estimates the probability of work-relatedness for low-back pain for a given worker with low-back pain seen by a general practitioner or an occupational health physician."