Biomechanical constraints remain major risk factors for low back pain. Results from a prospective cohort study in French male employees

Personalized assessment and management of non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Low back pain (LBP), and in particular non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), which accounts for approximately 90% of LBP, is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. In clinical trials, LBP is often poorly categorized into 'specific' versus 'non-specific' and 'acute' versus 'chronic' pain. However, a better understanding of the underlying pain mechanisms might improve study results and reduce the number of NSLBP patients.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Narrative review.

RESULTS

NSLBP is a multi-dimensional, biopsychosocial condition that requires all contributing dimensions to be assessed and prioritized. Thereby, the assessment of the contribution of nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic pain mechanisms forms the basis for personalized management. In addition, psychosocial (e.g. anxiety, catastrophizing) and contextual factors (e.g. work situation) as well as comorbidities need to be assessed and individually weighted. Personalized treatment of NSLBP further requires individually choosing treatment modalities, for example, exercising, patient education, cognitive-behavioural advice, pharmacotherapy, as well as tailoring treatment within these modalities, for example, the delivery of tailored psychological interventions or exercise programs. As the main pain mechanism and psychosocial factors may vary over time, re-assessment is necessary and treatment success should ideally be assessed quantitatively and qualitatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of the main contributing pain mechanism and the integration of the patients' view on their condition, including beliefs, preferences, concerns and expectations, are key in the personalized clinical management of NSLBP. In research, particular importance should be placed on accurate characterization of patients and on including outcomes relevant to the individual patient.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Here, a comprehensive review of the challenges associated with the diagnostic label 'non-specific low back pain' is given. It outlines what is lacking in current treatment guidelines and it is summarized what is currently known with respect to individual phenotyping. It becomes clear that more research on clinically meaningful subgroups is needed to best tailor treatment approaches.

Longer working hours and musculoskeletal pain: a meta-analysis

Objectives. Musculoskeletal pain is the most common health problem in the workplace, and one of the most important risk factors for this pain is longer working hours. This study aimed to investigate the association between long working hours and musculoskeletal pain. Methods. Based on the keywords, two scientific sources - PubMed and Embase - were reviewed. The time limit search included articles that were published until May 2020 and only studies published in English were eligible. The results of the studies were combined based on random effects and pooled odds ratio (OR) reported. The degree of heterogeneity in all analyses was investigated and reported based on χ² and I² tests. Publishing bias was also measured using statistical tests. Results. Longer working hours are associated with increased musculoskeletal pain with OR = 1.11 and 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.08, 1.14]. The result was OR = 1.52 and 95% CI [1.14, 2.03] in men and OR = 1.11 and 95% CI [1.00, 1.24] in women. Conclusion. Long working hours are an important and threatening factor for musculoskeletal health. Therefore, this issue should be considered in health policy as well as treatment and prevention.

Beyond physiology: Acute effects of side-alternating whole-body vibration on well-being, flexibility, balance, and cognition using a light and portable platform A randomized controlled trial

A good body-balance helps to prevent slips, trips and falls. New body-balance interventions must be explored, because effective methods to implement daily training are sparse. The purpose of the current study was to investigate acute effects of side-alternating whole-body vibration (SS-WBV) training on musculoskeletal well-being, flexibility, body balance, and cognition. In this randomized controlled trial, participants were randomly allocated into a verum (8.5 Hz, SS-WBV, N = 28) or sham (6 Hz, SS-WBV, N = 27) condition. The training consisted of three SS-WBV series that lasted one-minute each with two one-minute breaks in between. During the SS-WBV series, participants stood in the middle of the platform with slightly bent knees. During the breaks in between, participants could loosen up. Flexibility (modified fingertip-to-floor method), balance (modified Star Excursion Balance Test), and cognitive interference (Stroop Color Word Test) were tested before and after the exercise. Also, musculoskeletal well-being, muscle relaxation, sense of flexibility, sense of balance, and surefootedness were assessed in a questionnaire before and after the exercise. Musculoskeletal well-being was significantly increased only after verum. Also, muscle relaxation was significantly higher only after verum. The Flexibility-Test showed significant improvement after both conditions. Accordingly, sense of flexibility was significantly increased after both conditions. The Balance-Test showed significant improvement after verum, and after sham. Accordingly, increased sense of balance was significant after both conditions. However, surefootedness was significantly higher only after verum. The Stroop-Test showed significant improvement only after verum. The current study shows that one SS-WBV training session increases musculoskeletal well-being, flexibility, body balance and cognition. The abundance of improvements on a light and portable platform has great influence on the practicability of training in daily life, aiming to prevent slip trips and falls at work.

Biomechanical assessment of a passive back-support exoskeleton during repetitive lifting and carrying: Muscle activity, kinematics, and physical capacity

INTRODUCTION

Most people have experienced low back pain (LBP) more or less in their lifetime. Heavier load weight could increase the risk of LBP, especially in repetitive lifting and carrying tasks. The risk could also increase with the frequency of lifting. This study aims to investigate the effects of a passive back-support exoskeleton (PBSE) on trunk muscle activation, kinematics, and physical capacity in a repetitive lifting task and a carrying task in consideration of load weights in a laboratory setting.

RESULTS

Results showed that using the PBSE, the activities of the thoracic erector spinae and lumbar erector spinae muscles were reduced significantly by nearly 7% MVC and 3% MVC in the repetitive lifting task and the carrying task, respectively. There was no significant effect of the PBSE on the spine kinematics and physical capacity.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

This study supports the use of the PBSE to reduce trunk muscle activity in repetitive lifting and carrying tasks.

Muscle Quality and Functional and Conventional Ratios of Trunk Strength in Young Healthy Subjects: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

The trunk strength conventional ratio (CR) has been evaluated. However, the functional ratio and the ratio of strength to body weight (BW) or muscle mass (MM) have been poorly explored. Relative strength is a measure of muscle quality.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the trunk strength ratio normalized by BW and MM and compare the trunk's conventional and functional ratios collected in isokinetic and isometric conditions.

METHODS

Twenty-seven healthy males (21.48 ± 2.08 years, 70.22 ± 7.65 kg) were evaluated for trunk isometric and isokinetic strength using a functional electromechanical dynamometer.

RESULTS

The extensor's strength was greater than the flexors, with a CR of 0.41 ± 0.10 to 0.44 ± 0.10. Muscle quality was higher in eccentric contraction and high velocity for flexors and extensors. The functional flexor ratio (FFR) ranged between 0.41 ± 0.09 and 0.92 ± 0.27. The functional extensor ratio (FER) ranged between 2.53 ± 0.65 and 4.92 ± 1.26. The FFR and FER showed significant differences between velocities when considering the peak strength (p = 0.001) and mean strength (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Trunk extensors were stronger than the flexors; thus, the CR was less than one. Muscle quality was higher at a high velocity. Unlike CR, FFR and FER behaved differently at distinct velocities. This finding highlights the need to explore the behavior of the functional ratio in different populations.

Low Back Pain-Behavior Correction by Providing Haptic Feedbacks: A Preliminary Investigation

The activities performed by nurses in their daily activities involve frequent forward bending and awkward back postures. These movements contribute to the prevalence and development of low back pain (LBP). In previous studies, it has been shown that modifying their posture by education and training in proper lifting techniques decreases the prevalence of LBP. However, this education and training needs to be implemented daily. Hence, implementing the use of a wearable device to monitor the back posture with haptic feedback would be of importance to prevent LBP. This paper proposes a wearable device to monitor the back posture of the user and provide feedback when the participant is performing a possible hurtful movement. In this study, a group of participants was asked to wear the device while performing three of the most common activities performed by nurses. The study was divided into three sessions: In the first session, the participants performed the activities without feedback (baseline). During the second session, the participants received feedback from the wearable device (training) while performing the three tasks. Finally, for the third session, the participants performed the three tasks again, but the haptic feedback was turned off (validation). We found an improvement in the posture of more than 40% for the pitch (lateral bending) and roll (forward/backward bending) axes and 7% for the yaw (twisting) axis when comparing to the results from session 1 and session 2. The comparison between session 1 and session 3 showed an overall improvement of more than 50% for the pitch (lateral bending) and roll (forward/backward bending) axes and more than 20% for the yaw axis. These results hinted at the impact of the haptic feedback on the participants to correct their posture.

Development and evaluation of RAMP II - a practitioner's tool for assessing musculoskeletal disorder risk factors in industrial manual handling

RAMP II is an observation-based tool developed for assessing a wide range of musculoskeletal disorder risk factors related to industrial manual handling. RAMP II, which is part of the RAMP tool, is based on research studies and expert judgments. The assessment relies mainly on direct or video observations of the work being assessed, but additionally on measured push/pull forces and weights of handled objects, and on perceived workload and discomfort. Over 80 practitioners participated in the development of the tool. According to the evaluations, 73% of the assessment items evaluated had acceptable reliability, and the majority of the potential end-users reported that RAMP II is usable for assessing risks and as a decision base. It is concluded that this study provides support that RAMP II is usable for risk assessment of musculoskeletal disorder risk factors in industrial manual handling. Practitioner summary: RAMP II is an observation-based assessment tool for screening and assessing major musculoskeletal exposures in industrial manual handling jobs. Over 80 practitioners participated in the development of the tool. This study provides support that RAMP II is usable for risk assessment of musculoskeletal disorder risk factors in industrial manual handling. Abbreviations: CTS: carpal tunnel syndrome; HARM: the Hand Arm Risk Assessment method; IMP: intramuscular pressure; κ_w: linearly weighted kappa; LBD: lower back disorders; LBP: lower back pain; MAWL: maximum acceptable weight of lift; MHO: manual handling operations; MSD: musculoskeletal disorder; MNSD: neck-shoulder disorder; NSP: neck-shoulder pain; OCRA: the Occupational Repetitive Action methods; OHS: occupational health and safety; PABAK: prevalence and bias adjusted kappa; p₀: proportion of agreement; RAMP: Risk Assessment and Management tool for manual handling Proactively; ROM: range of motion; RPL: risk and priority level; RSI: the Revised Strain Index; RULA: the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment; SWEA: Swedish Work Environment Authority; UEMSDs: upper-extremity work-related musculoskeletal disorders; WMSD: work-related musculoskeletal disorder; WRMSD: work-related musculoskeletal disorder; workday_8h: eight hours workday.

Influencing lumbar posture through real-time biofeedback and its effects on the kinematics and kinetics of a repetitive lifting task

BACKGROUND

Repetitive, flexed lumbar postures are a risk factor associated with low back injuries. Young, novice workers involved in manual handling also appear at increased risk of injury. The evidence for the effectiveness of postural biofeedback as an intervention approach is lacking, particularly for repetitive, fatiguing tasks.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How does real-time lumbosacral (LS) postural biofeedback modify the kinematics and kinetics of repetitive lifting and the risk of low back injury?

METHODS

Thirty-four participants were randomly allocated to two groups: biofeedback (BF) and non-biofeedback (NBF). Participants repetitively lifted a 13 kg box at 10 lifts per minute for up to 20 min. Real-time biofeedback of LS posture occurred when flexion exceeded 80% maximum. Three-dimensional motion analysis and ground reaction forces enabled estimates of joint kinematics and kinetics. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was measured throughout.

RESULTS

The BF group adopted significantly less peak lumbosacral flexion (LSF) over the 20 min when compared to the NBF group, which resulted in a significant reduction in LS passive resistance forces. This was accompanied by increased peak hip and knee joint angular velocities in the BF group. Lower limb moments did not significantly differ between groups. Feedback provided to participants diminished beyond 10 min and subjective perceptions of physical exertion were lower in the BF group.

SIGNIFICANCE

Biofeedback of lumbosacral posture enabled participants to make changes in LSF that appear beneficial in reducing the risk of low back injury during repetitive lifting. Accompanying behavioural adaptations did not negatively impact on physical exertion or lower limb joint moments. Biofeedback of LS posture offers a potential preventative and treatment adjunct to educate handlers about their lifting posture. This could be particularly important for young, inexperienced workers employed in repetitive manual handling who appear at increased risk of back injury.

Can We Trust the Literature on Risk Factors and Triggers for Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review of a Sample of Contemporary Literature

Background

Risk factors (RFs) for the "disease" of low back pain (LBP) are probably different from the triggers of new episodes of LBP. Investigating RFs for the onset of the "disease" and the triggers of LBP is problematic if researchers fail to discern the different types of pain-free status of participants at and before baseline. There is a difference between never having had LBP and having been pain-free for a certain period only. In this review, we assessed the dependability of contemporary literature on RFs and triggers of LBP, in relation to the "disease" and the episodes, respectively.

Methods

A literature search from 2010 until 2017 was performed. Information on the definitions of LBP, potential RFs/triggers, and study design was extracted. Studies were reclassified based on the type of LBP concerning the "disease," episode, or mixed/unclear/chronic. RFs and triggers were grouped into major domains, and positive associations listed, respectively, for the "disease" and episodes.

Results

In 42 of the included 47 articles, it was not clear if the authors investigated RFs for the "disease" of LBP or triggers of new episodes. Only one study properly reported RFs for the onset of the "disease" of LBP, and four studies were deemed suitable to investigate triggers for a new episode of LBP. No study reproduced the results of other included studies.

Conclusion

Trustworthy information regarding RFs and triggers of LBP is rare in the current literature. Future research needs to use precise definitions of LBP (onset of the "disease" vs. episodes) and nominate the timing of the associated factors in relation to the types of LBP as these are two critical factors when studying causes of LBP.

Failure to define low back pain as a disease or an episode renders research on causality unsuitable: results of a systematic review

Background

Causative factors may be different for the very first onset of symptoms of the ‘disease’ of low back pain (LBP) than for ensuing episodes that occur after a pain-free period. This differentiation hinges on a life-time absence of low back pain at first onset and short-term absence for further episodes. In this systematic review, we explored whether researchers make these distinctions when investigating the causality of LBP.

Methods

A literature search of PUBMED, CINAHL, and SCOPUS databases was performed from January 2010 until September 2016 using the search terms ‘low back pain’ or ‘back pain’ and ‘risk factor’ or ‘caus*’ or ‘predict*’ or ‘onset’ or ‘first-time’ or ‘inception’ or ‘incidence’. Two reviewers extracted information on study design, types of episodes of back pain to distinguish the disease of LBP and recurring episodes, and also to determine the definitions of disease- or pain-free periods.

Results

Thirty-three articles purporting to study causes of LBP were included. Upon scrutiny, 31 of the 33 articles were unclear as to what type of causality they were studying, that of the ‘disease’ or the episode, or a mere association with LBP. Only 9 studies used a prospective study design. Five studies appeared to investigate the onset of the disease of LBP, however, only one study truly captured the first incidence of LBP, which was the result of sports injury. Six appeared to study episodes but only one clearly related to the concept of episodes. Therefore, among those 11 studies, nine included both first-time LBP and episodes of LBP. Consequently, 22 studies related to the prevalence of LBP, as they probably included a mixture of first-time, recurring and ongoing episodes without distinction.

Conclusion

Recent literature concerning the causality of LBP does not differentiate between the ‘disease’ of LBP and its recurring episodes mainly due to a lack of a clear definition of absence of LBP at baseline. Therefore, current research is not capable of providing a valid answer on this topic.

Structural equation modelling of lower back pain due to whole-body vibration exposure in the construction industry

Whole-body vibration (WBV) exposure is a health hazard among workers, causing lower back pain (LBP) in the construction industry. This study examines key factors affecting LBP due to WBV exposure using exploratory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. The results confirm five key factors (equipment, job related, organizational, personal, social context) with their 17 associated items. The organizational factor is found the most important, as it influences the other four factors. The results also show that appropriate seat type, specific training programme, job rotation, workers' satisfaction and workers' physical condition are crucial in reducing LBP due to WBV exposure. Moreover, provision of new machines without proper training and good working condition might not help reduce LBP due to WBV exposure. The results help the construction companies to better understand key factors affecting LBP due to WBV exposure, and to plan for a better health improvement programme.

Trunk kinematics and low back pain during pruning among vineyard workers-A field study at the Chateau Larose-Trintaudon

The prevalence of low back disorders is dramatically high in viticulture. Field measurements that objectively quantify work exposure can provide information on the relationship between the adopted trunk postures and low back pain. The purposes of the present study were three-fold (1) to carry out a kinematics analysis of vineyard-workers’ pruning activity by extracting the duration of bending and rotation of the trunk, (2) to question separately the relationship between the duration of forward bending or trunk rotation with low back pain intensity and pressure pain sensitivity and (3) to question the relationship between the combined duration of forward bending and trunk rotation on low back pain intensity and pressure pain sensitivity. Fifteen vineyard-workers were asked to perform pruning activity for 12 minutes with a wireless triaxial accelerometer placed on their trunk. Kinematic analysis of the trunk showed that vineyard-workers spent more than 50% of the time with the trunk flexed greater than 30° and more than 20% with the trunk rotated greater than 10°. These results show that pruning activity lead to the adoption of forward bended and rotated trunk postures that could significantly increase the risk of work related musculoskeletal disorders in the low back. However, this result was mitigated by the observation of an absence of significant association between the duration of forward bending and trunk rotation with low back pain intensity or pressure pain sensitivity. Even if prospective field measurements and studies assessing the effects of low back pain confounders are needed, this field study provides new genuine information on trunk kinematics during pruning activity.

Contribution of occupational factors to the incidence and persistence of chronic low back pain among workers: results from the longitudinal VISAT study

OBJECTIVE

Among the aetiological factors of chronic low back pain (CLBP), occupational factors are often suspected, but their contribution remains to be ascertained. This study aimed to determine the impact of a wide range of occupational factors on the incidence and persistence of CLBP.

METHOD

From the VISAT (VIeillissement SAnté Travail) study, 1560 workers were examined at baseline and 5 years later. CLBP was defined as having low back pain or specific treatment for at least 6 months. Participants newly affected with CLBP and those with persistent CLBP at follow-up were distinguished. In addition to individual factors, a broad panel of occupational factors were analysed, covering employment, physical, organisational and psychosocial factors. Multivariate analyses were used to determine predictive factors of incidence and persistence of CLBP. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed to analyse the contribution of occupational factors.

RESULTS

22.6% of participants without any CLBP initially presented with CLBP 5 years later, while 53.7% of participants with CLBP at baseline had CLBP at the second collection. Carrying heavy loads, the lack of recognition of completed work and productivity-related income predicted a higher risk of incidence of CLBP. However, no significant association between occupational factors and the risk for persistence of CLBP was observed, while the risk was multiplied by two for history of depression and rheumatological events. ROC curves confirmed the significant contribution of occupational factors to incidence of CLBP.

CONCLUSIONS

Occupational factors played a pivotal role in the incidence of CLBP, while individual factors were the main determinants of persistence of CLBP.

Comparative cross-sectional study for understanding the burden of low back pain among public bus transport drivers

BACKGROUND

Even though low back pain (LBP) is common, some occupations pose a higher risk. Identifying these occupations and specific factors will help to reduce the suffering and burden. This study aims to compare the prevalence of chronic LBP among bus drivers and to find its association with some occupational factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

It is a cross-sectional study to compare prevalence of LBP and factors associated with it, in two groups of drivers (n = 178) and nondrivers (n = 184).

RESULTS

The 10 years' percentage prevalence of LBP was found to be 70.8 and 51.6 among drivers and nondrivers respectively, whereas point prevalence in the same was 64.0 and 44.6. Drivers are at a higher risk for LBP with Odds ratio-2.270 (1.471-3.502). Risk factors such as prolonged sitting in one posture, night shifts, job dissatisfaction, tobacco use, and lack of exercise were significantly higher among drivers. Though the prevalence and intensity of LBP was higher among drivers, their number of leaves and hospital admitted days were less among drivers.

CONCLUSION

This is a potential group for intervention as prevalence of LBP, neck pain, and most of the suspected risk factors were higher among the drivers. Drivers got less recovery time and had higher sequelae.

Psychosocial Risk Factors, Interventions, and Comorbidity in Patients with Non-Specific Low Back Pain in Primary Care: Need for Comprehensive and Patient-Centered Care

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) affects many people and has major socio-economic consequences. Traditional therapeutic strategies, mainly focused on biomechanical factors, have had moderate and short-term impact. Certain psychosocial factors have been linked to poor prognosis of LBP and they are increasingly considered as promising targets for management of LBP. Primary health care providers (HCPs) are involved in most of the management of people with LBP and they are skilled in providing comprehensive care, including consideration of psychosocial dimensions. This review aims to discuss three pieces of recent research focusing on psychosocial issues in LBP patients in primary care. In the first systematic review, the patients' or HCPs' overall judgment about the likely evolution of LBP was the factor most strongly linked to poor outcome, with predictive validity similar to that of multidimensional scales. This result may be explained by the implicit aggregation of many prognostic factors underlying this judgment and suggests the relevance of considering the patients from biopsychosocial and longitudinal points of view. The second review showed that most of the interventions targeting psychosocial factors in LBP in primary care have to date focused on the cognitive-behavioral factors, resulting in little impact. It is unlikely that any intervention focusing on a single factor would ever fit the needs of most patients; interventions targeting determinants from several fields (mainly psychosocial, biomechanical, and occupational) may be more relevant. Should multiple stakeholders be involved in such interventions, enhanced interprofessional collaboration would be critical to ensure the delivery of coordinated care. Finally, in the third study, the prevalence of psychosocial comorbidity in chronic LBP patients was not found to be significantly higher than in other patients consulting in primary care. Rather than specifically screening for psychosocial conditions, this suggests taking into account any potential comorbidity in patients with chronic LBP, as in other patients. All these results support the adoption of a more comprehensive and patient-centered approach when dealing with patients with LBP in primary care. As this condition is illustrative of many situations encountered in primary care, the strategies proposed here may benefit most patients consulting in this setting.

Incidence and risk factors for thoracic spine pain in the working population: the French Pays de la Loire study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the incidence and risk factors for incident thoracic spine pain (TSP) in workers representative of a French region's working population.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 3,710 workers were assessed in 2002-2005, and 2,332 (62.9%) of them were reassessed in 2007-2010. TSP was assessed by a self-administered Nordic questionnaire at baseline and at followup. At baseline, all participants completed a self-administered questionnaire on personal factors and work exposure. A total of 1,886 subjects (1,124 men and 762 women) without TSP at baseline were eligible for analysis. Associations between incident TSP and risk factors at baseline were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

The incidence rate of TSP was 5.2 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 3.9-6.6) per 100 men and 10.0 (95% CI 7.8-12.1) per 100 women. TSP was often associated with low back pain and neck pain. TSP in men was associated with age (odds ratios [ORs] ranging from 2.6 [95% CI 0.95-7.1] at 30-39 years to 6.0 [95% CI 2.1-17.3] at ≥50 years), being tall (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.2-3.9]), frequent/sustained trunk bending (OR 3.0 [95% CI 1.5-6.1]), lack of recovery period or change in the task (OR 2.0 [95% CI 1.2-3.6]), and driving vehicles (OR 2.8 [95% CI 1.4-5.5]). Being overweight or obese was associated with lower risk (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3-0.96]). TSP in women was associated with high perceived physical workload (OR 1.9 [95% CI 1.1-3.3]), after adjustment for confounding variables.

CONCLUSION

The risk model of TSP combined personal and work-related organizational and physical factors. Trunk bending appeared to be a strong independent predictor of TSP in this working population.

Are forward bending of the trunk and low back pain associated among Danish blue-collar workers? A cross-sectional field study based on objective measures

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the association between the duration of objectively measured forward bending of the trunk and low back pain (LBP) intensity among 198 Danish blue-collar workers (male = 115; female = 83). The duration of forward bending of ≥ 30°, ≥ 60° and ≥ 90° was divided into high (the highest tertile) and low-moderate (the remaining tertiles) categories. High (>5) and low ( ≤ 5) pain intensities were categorised from a self-reported 0-9 scale. Results of multi-adjusted logistic regressions indicated no significant positive associations between forward bending and LBP intensity. On the contrary, higher duration of forward bending of ≥ 30° was associated with lower LBP intensity during all day (OR = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.15-1.02; p = 0.05) and work (OR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.17-1.15; p = 0.09). This indication of a negative association may be explained by fear-avoidance behaviour of the blue-collar worker, job crafting or healthy worker effect.