Retention in physically demanding jobs of individuals with low back pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

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

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow up.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess whether people with low back pain (LBP) and self-reported physically demanding jobs, benefit from an occupational medicine intervention, in addition to a single hospital consultation and a magnetic resonance imaging, at 1 year of follow-up. Secondly, to examine whether the positive health effects, found in both groups at 6 months, persist at 1-year follow-up.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The prevalence of LBP is high in the working population, resulting in a substantial social and economic burden. Although there are many guidelines available on the management of LBP, including multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation, they provide limited guidance on the occupational medicine aspects.

METHODS

As reported previously, 305 participants with LBP and self-reported physically demanding jobs were enrolled in the randomized controlled study and randomly allocated to clinical care with additional occupational medicine intervention or clinical care alone. Data were collected at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year. Outcomes included in the present 1-year follow-up study are changes in neuropathic pain (painDETECT questionnaire), severity of pain (0-10 numerical rating scale), disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), fear-avoidance beliefs (FABQ), physical, and mental quality of life (short-form 36).

RESULTS

The study showed no effect of an occupational intervention on neuropathic pain, fear-avoidance beliefs, physical and mental quality of life nor disability measured after 1 year. The positive effects found at 6 months in both groups, remained at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that a thorough clinical consultation, with focus on explaining the cause of pain and instructions to stay active, can promote long-lasting physical and mental health in individuals with LBP. Therefore, additional occupational interventions could focus on altering occupational obstacles on a structural level.Level of Evidence: 2.

Early occupational intervention for people with low back pain in physically demanding jobs: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Occupational medicine seeks to reduce sick leave; however, evidence for an add-on effect to usual care is sparse. The objective of the GOBACK trial was to test whether people with low back pain (LBP) in physically demanding jobs and at risk of sick leave gain additional benefit from a 3-month complex intervention that involves occupational medicine consultations, a work-related evaluation and workplace intervention plan, an optional workplace visit, and a physical activity program, over a single hospital consultation and an MRI.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We enrolled people from the capital region of Denmark to an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with a superiority design from March 2014 through December 2015. In a hospital setting 305 participants (99 women) with LBP and in physically demanding jobs were randomized to occupational intervention (n = 153) or no additional intervention (control group; n = 152) added to a single hospital consultation giving a thorough explanation of the pain (i.e., clinical examination and MRI) and instructions to stay active and continue working. Primary outcome was accumulated sick leave days due to LBP during 6 months. Secondary outcomes were changes in neuropathic pain (painDETECT questionnaire [PDQ]), pain 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) for physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and self-assessed ability to continue working (range 0-10). An intention-to-treat analysis of sick leave at 6 months showed no significant difference between groups (mean difference in days suggestively in favor of no additional intervention: 3.50 [95% CI -5.08 to 12.07], P = 0.42). Both groups showed significant improvements in average pain score (NRS), disability (RMDQ), fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activities and work (FABQ), and physical HRQoL (SF-36 physical component summary); there were no significant differences between the groups in any secondary outcome. There was no statistically significant improvement in neuropathic pain (PDQ score), mental HRQoL (SF-36 mental component summary), and self-assessed ability to stay in job. Four participants could not complete the MRI or the intervention due to a claustrophobic attack or accentuated back pain. Workplace visits may be an important element in the occupational intervention, although not always needed. A per-protocol analysis that included the 40 participants in the intervention arm who received a workplace visit as part of the additional occupational intervention did not show an add-on benefit in terms of sick leave (available cases after 6 months, mean difference: -0.43 days [95% CI -12.8 to 11.94], P = 0.945). The main limitations were the small number of sick leave days taken and that the comprehensive use of MRI may limit generalization of the findings to other settings, for example, general practice.

CONCLUSIONS

When given a single hospital consultation and MRI, people in physically demanding jobs at risk of sick leave due to LBP did not benefit from a complex additional occupational intervention. Occupational interventions aimed at limiting biopsychological obstacles (e.g., fear-avoidance beliefs and behaviors), barriers in the workplace, and system barriers seem essential to reduce sick leave in patients with LBP. This study indicates that these obstacles and barriers may be addressed by thorough usual care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov: NCT02015572.

Physical demand at work and sick leave due to low back pain: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate if self-reported high physical demand at work, objective physical workload using a job exposure matrix (JEM) and fear-avoidance beliefs are associated with reported sick leave in the previous year in persons with low back pain (LBP). Second, to investigate if the effects of fear-avoidance and self-reported high physical demand at work on sick leave are modified by the objective physical workloads.

SETTINGS

Participants were recruited from general practice and by advertisement in a local newspaper.

PARTICIPANTS

305participants with a current period of 2-4 weeks LBP and self-reported difficulty in maintaining physically demanding jobs due to LBP were interviewed, clinically examined and had an MRI at baseline.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Independent variables were high fear-avoidance, self-reported high physical demand at work and objective measures of physical workloads (JEM). Outcome was self-reported sick leave due to LBP in the previous year. Logistic regression and tests for interaction were used to identify risk factors and modifiers for the association with self-reported sick leave.

RESULTS

Self-reported physically demanding work and high fear-avoidance were significantly associated with prior sick leave due to LBP in the previous year with OR 1.75 95% CI (1.10 to 2.75) and 2.75 95% CI (1.61to 4.84), respectively. No objective physical workloads had significant associations. There was no modifying effect of objective physical workloads on the association between self-reported physical demand at work/high fear-avoidance and sick leave.

CONCLUSIONS

Occupational interventions to reduce sick leave due to LBP may have to focus more on those with high self-reported physical demands and high fear-avoidance, and less on individuals with the objectively highest physical workload.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02015572; Post-results.