Documents Ariëns, Geertje AM. 8 results

"STUDY DESIGN:
A 3-year prospective cohort study among workers of 34 companies in the Netherlands.
OBJECTIVES:
To investigate the relation between flexion and rotation of the trunk and lifting at work and the occurrence of low back pain.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:
Previous studies on work-related physical risk factors for low back pain either lacked quantification of the physical load or did not take confounding by individual and psychosocial factors into account.
METHODS:
The study population consisted of 861 workers with no low back pain at baseline and complete data on the occurrence of low back pain during the 3-year follow-up period. Physical load at work was assessed by means of analyses of video-recordings. Information on other risk factors and the occurrence of low back pain was obtained by means of self-administered questionnaires. RESULTS: An increased risk of low back pain was observed for workers who worked with the trunk in a minimum of 60 degrees of flexion for more than 5% of the working time (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.1), for workers who worked with the trunk in a minimum of 30 degrees of rotation for more than 10% of the working time (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1. 9), and for workers who lifted a load of at least 25 kg more than 15 times per working day (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.3).
CONCLUSIONS:
Flexion and rotation of the trunk and lifting at work are moderate risk factors for low back pain, especially at greater levels of exposure."

"OBJECTIVE
To study the relation between neck pain and work related neck flexion, neck rotation, and sitting.
METHODS
A prospective cohort study was performed with a follow up of 3 years among 1334 workers from 34 companies. Work related physical load was assessed by analysing objectively measured exposure data (video recordings) of neck flexion, neck rotation, and sitting posture. Neck pain was assessed by a questionnaire. Adjustments were made for various physical factors that were related or not related to work, psychosocial factors, and individual characteristics.
RESULTS
A significant positive relation was found between the percentage of the working time in a sitting position and neck pain, implying an increased risk of neck pain for workers who were sitting for more than 95% of the working time (crude relative risk (RR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.04 to 3.88; adjusted RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.05 to 5.21). A trend for a positive relation between neck flexion and neck pain was found, suggesting an increased risk of neck pain for people working with the neck at a minimum of 20° of flexion for more than 70% of the working time (crude RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 4.11; adjusted RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.82). No clear relation was found between neck rotation and neck pain.
CONCLUSION
Sitting at work for more than 95% of the working time seems to be a risk factor for neck pain and there is a trend for a positive relation between neck flexion and neck pain. No clear relation was found between neck rotation and neck pain."

"the objective was to determine whether physical and psychosocial load at work influence sickness absence due to low back pain. After adjustment of the work related physical and psychosocial factors for each other and for other potential determinants, significant rate ratios ranging from 2.0 to 3.2 were found for trunk flexion, trunk rotation, lifting, and low job satisfaction. A dose-response relation was found for trunk flexion, but not for trunk rotation or lifting. Non-significant rate ratios of about 1.4 were found for low supervisor support and low coworker support. Quantitative job demands, conflicting demands, decision authority, and skill discretion showed no relation with sickness absence due to low back pain. Flexion and rotation of the trunk, lifting, and low job satisfaction are risk factors for sickness absence due to low back pain. Some indications of a relation between low social support, either from supervisors or coworkers, and sickness absence due to low back pain are also present. "

"The effectiveness of return-to-work intervention for subacute low-back pain on work absenteeism, pain severity, and functional status was examined by means of a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Publications in English that met the selection criteria were identified in a computer-aided search and assessed for methodological quality. A best-evidence synthesis was performed instead of statistical data pooling, because of the heterogeneity of the interventions and study populations. Five of nine studies comparing return-to-work intervention with usual care were identified as methodologically high-quality studies. Strong evidence was found for the effectiveness of return to work intervention on the return-to-work rate after 6 months and for the effectiveness of return-to-work intervention on the reduction of days of absence from work after =12 months. It can be concluded that return-to-work interventions are equal or more effective regarding absence from work due to subacute low-back pain than usual care is."(Authors' abstract)

Objectives This study investigated the relationship between psychosocial work characteristics and low-back pain and the potential intermediate role of psychological strain variables in this relationship. Methods The research was part of a prospective cohort study of risk factors for musculoskeletal symptoms. The study population consisted of 861 workers from 34 companies in The Netherlands who had no low-back pain at baseline and for whom data on the occurrence of low-back pain were obtained with annual questionnaires during a 3-year follow-up period. Information on psychosocial work characteristics and psychological strain variables was collected using a questionnaire at baseline. Cases of low-back pain were defined as workers who reported, in at least one of the annual follow-up questionnaires, that they had had regular or prolonged low-back pain in the previous 12 months.Results After adjustment for individual factors and quantified physical load at work, nonsignificant relative risks ranging from 1.3 to 1.6 were observed for high quantitative job demands, high conflicting demands, low supervisory support, and low co-worker support. Decision authority and skill discretion showed no relationship with low-back pain. In general, the estimated relative risks for the psychosocial work characteristics were scarcely influenced by additional adjustment for job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and sleeping difficulties. Conclusions It can be concluded that low social support, from either supervisors or co-workers, appears to be a risk factor for low-back pain. Some indications of a relationship between high quantitative job demands and high conflicting demands and low-back pain were also found. Little evidence was found for an intermediate role for the psychological strain variables under study.

Background Neck pain, which is assumed to be a multifactorial disease, is a major problem in modern society. Methods To identify the most important psychosocial risk factors for neck pain, a systematic review of the literature was carried out. The methodological quality of all studies in the review was assessed. Four levels of evidence were defined to assess the strength of evidence for potential risk factors for neck pain (strong, moderate, some or inconclusive evidence). Results Some evidence was found for a positive relationship between neck pain and high quantitative job demands, low social (coworker) support, low job control, high and low skill discretion and low job satisfaction. Inconclusive evidence was found for high job strain, low supervisor support, conflicts at work, low job security, and limited rest break opportunities. Conclusions The procedure of the assessment of the methodological quality and the rating system applied to distinguish between high- and low-score studies, had a considerable influence on the level of evidence, indicating that changes in this procedure may have a major impact on the overall conclusions of this review.

"To identify physical risk factors for neck pain, a systematic review of the literature was carried out. Based on methodological quality and study design, 4 levels of evidence were defined to establish the strength of evidence for the relationship between risk factors and neck pain. Altogether, 22 cross-sectional studies, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 1 case-referent study were eligible for determining the level of evidence. The results showed some evidence for a positive relationship between neck pain and the duration of sitting and twisting or bending of the trunk. A sensitivity analysis was carried out excluding 3 items of the quality list, the importance of which seemed doubtful. On the basis of this sensitivity analysis, it was concluded that there is some evidence for a positive relationship between neck pain and the following work-related risk factors: neck flexion, arm force, arm posture, duration of sitting, twisting or bending of the trunk, hand-arm vibration, and workplace design."

"Objectives This study investigates whether an imbalance between physical capacity and exposure to work-related physical factors is associated with low-back, neck, or shoulder pain.Methods Data of the longitudinal study on musculoskeletal disorders, absenteeism, stress, and health (SMASH), with a follow-up of 3 years (N=1789), were used. At baseline, physical capacity (isokinetic lifting strength, static muscle endurance, and mobility of the spine) and exposure to work-related physical factors were assessed. During the follow-up, low-back, neck, and shoulder pain were self-reported annually. “Imbalance” was defined as lower than median capacity combined with higher than median exposure, “high balance” was high capacity and high exposure, and “low balance” was low capacity and low exposure. Results For both the low-back and neck, imbalance between static endurance and working with flexed postures was a risk factor for pain [relative risk (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.08–1.68, and RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.96–1.91, respectively]. Low balance was also associated with low-back pain (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04–1.68). Furthermore, low balance between isokinetic lifting strength and lifting exposure was a risk factor for low-back and neck pain [RR between 1.22 (95% CI 0.99–1.49) and 1.35 (95% CI 1.03–1.79)]. No associations were found with shoulder pain.Conclusions Some relationship between low-back and neck pain and combined measures of physical capacity with exposure to work-related physical factors seems to exist, but an imbalance between physical capacity and exposure was not found to yield higher risks than high balance or low balance."