Early Occupational Intervention for People with Low Back Pain in Physically Demanding Jobs: 1-year Follow-up Results of the Randomized Controlled GOBACK Trial

Effects of an early multidisciplinary intervention on sickness absence in patients with persistent low back pain—a randomized controlled trial

Background

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation is recommended to reduce sickness absence and disability in patients with subacute or chronic low back pain (LBP).

This study aimed to investigate whether a 12-week coordinated work oriented multidisciplinary rehabilitation intervention was effective on return to work and number of days off work during one-year follow-up when compared to usual care.

Methods

This study is a randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of a 12-week multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation program in addition to usual treatment. 770 patients with LBP, who were sick-listed, or at risk of being sick-listed were included in the study.

The primary outcome was number of days off work due to LBP. The secondary outcomes were disability, health-related quality of life, pain, psychological distress and fear avoidance behavior.

Data were collected at baseline, at the end of treatment, and at 6- and 12-months follow-up. Analyses were carried out according to the “intention-to-treat” principles.

Results

A significant decrease in the number of patients who were on sick-leave was found in both groups at the end of treatment and at 6- and 12-months follow-up. Additionally, disability, pain, health related quality of life, psychological distress, and fear avoidance beliefs improved in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups on any of the outcomes.

Conclusions

The coordinated multidisciplinary intervention had no additional effect on sickness absence, disability, pain, or health related quality of life as compared with that of usual care.

Trial registration

This study was retrospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (registration ID: NCT01690234). The study was approved by The Danish Regional Ethics Committee (file no: H-C-2008–112) as well as registered at and approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency.

Development of the Prevent for Work Questionnaire (P4Wq) for the assessment of musculoskeletal risk factors in the workplace: part 2-pilot study for questionnaire development and validation

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop a multifactorial, self-report questionnaire: Prevent for Work Questionnaire (P4Wq). The questionnaire is intended for screening for risk factors in work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs).

DESIGN

Data were collected from otherwise healthy workers employed in three service areas at a specialist hospital in Italy: healthcare, administration and ancillary services.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

In all, 115 participants were enrolled (67% women; average age 41.5±9.94 years). The content of the tool for WMSDs was derived from three participation rounds of analysis involving a select group of experts who identified the questionnaire domains and items. Participants responded to 89 items in addition to the EuroQol 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABq) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The proportion of missing data and the distribution of responses were analysed for each item. Items with a discrimination index >0.40 and an interitem correlation <0.80 were retained. Factor analysis was performed using the VARIMAX rotation method, factor extraction, and identification, assignment of items to subscales, and assignment of scores to items. Internal consistency, reliability, construct validity and face validity were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 52 items were included in the factor analysis and four subscales identified: Physical Stress Subscore (six items); Mental Stress Subscore (six items); Job Satisfaction Subscore (four items) and Kinesiophobia/Catastrophizing Subscore (four items). The items in the final questionnaire version had a factor loading >0.7. The questionnaire consisted of 20 items with good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.81-0.91), reliability (weighted kappa coefficient 0.617-1.00), good construct validity (EQ-5D-5L, r=-0.549, p<0.001; ODI, r=0.549, p<0.001; FABq work, r=0.688, p<0.001) and satisfactory face validity (universal validity index 96.04%).

CONCLUSION

The P4Wq is a 20-item, multifactorial self-report risk assessment questionnaire. It may provide a useful tool for screening for WMSDs by specifically addressing back disorders. It investigates risks for individual workers and may inform educational programmes and preventive strategies tailored to a worker's needs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04192604.

Development of the Prevent for Work questionnaire (P4Wq) for assessment of musculoskeletal risk in the workplace: part 1-literature review and domains selection

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to define appropriate domains and items for the development of a self-administered questionnaire to assess the risk of developing work-related musculoskeletal disorder (WMSD) and the risk of its progression to chronicity.

DESIGN

Literature review and survey study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A literature review and a two-round interview with 15 experts in musculoskeletal pain were performed to identify the available domains for WMSD assessment.

INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOME

To ensure quality, only validated questionnaires were included for the Delphi process. A three-round Delphi method, with three round steps, was used to select the most pertinent and relevant domains and items.

RESULTS

Nine questionnaires were identified through the expert discussion and literature review, comprising 38 candidate domains and 504 items. In the first round of the Delphi group, 17 domains reached more than 70% agreement and were selected. In the second round, 10 domains were rejected, while 11 were selected to complete the pool of domains. In the third and final round, 89 items belonging to 28 domains were defined as significant to develop a WMSDs risk assessment questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

No specific risk assessment questionnaires for WMSDs were identified from the literature. WMSD risk of presence and chronicity can be defined by an assessment tool based on the biopsychosocial model and the fear-avoidance components of chronic pain. The present study provides the formulation and operationalisation of the constructs in domains and items needed for developing and validating the questionnaire.