Implementation of Early Intervention Protocol in Australia for 'High Risk' Injured Workers is Associated with Fewer Lost Work Days Over 2 Years Than Usual (Stepped) Care.

Purpose To evaluate whether a protocol for early intervention addressing the psychosocial risk factors for delayed return to work in workers with soft tissue injuries would achieve better long-term outcomes than usual (stepped) care. Methods The study used a controlled, non-randomised prospective design to compare two case management approaches. For the intervention condition, workers screened within 1-3 weeks of injury as being at high risk of delayed returned to work by the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire-short version (ÖMPSQ-SF) were offered psychological assessment and a comprehensive protocol to address the identified obstacles for return to work. Similarly identified injured workers in the control condition were managed under usual (stepped) care arrangements. Results At 2-year follow-up, the mean lost work days for the Intervention group was less than half that of the usual care group, their claim costs were 30% lower, as was the growth trajectory of their costs after 11 months. Conclusions The findings supported the hypothesis that brief psychological risk factor screening, combined with a protocol for active collaboration between key stakeholders to address identified psychological and workplace factors for delayed return to work, can achieve better return on investment than usual (stepped) care.

Correction to: Implementation of Early Intervention Protocol in Australia for 'High Risk' Injured Workers is Associated with Fewer Lost Work Days Over 2 Years Than Usual (Stepped) Care.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a spelling error in one of the co-authors's names. The family name of the co-author was incorrectly displayed as "James McCauley" instead of "James McAuley. The original article has been corrected.

Predicting Return to Work in a Heterogeneous Sample of Recently Injured Workers Using the Brief ÖMPSQ-SF.

Purpose (1) to examine the ability of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire-short version (ÖMPSQ-SF) to predict time to return to pre-injury work duties (PID) following a work-related soft tissue injury (regardless of body location); and (2) to examine the appropriateness of 50/100 as a suitable cut-off score for case identification. Methods Injured workers (IW) from six public hospitals in Sydney, Australia, who had taken medically-sanctioned time off work due to their injury, were recruited by insurance case managers within 5-15 days of their injury. Eligible participants (N = 213 in total) were administered the ÖMPSQ-SF over the telephone by the case manager. For objective (1) Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to predict days to return to PID using the ÖMPSQ-SF. For objective (2) receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine the ÖMPSQ-SF total score that optimises sensitivity and specificity in detecting whether or not participants had returned to PID within 2-7 weeks. Results The total ÖMPSQ-SF score significantly predicted number of days to return to PID, such that for every 1-point increase in the total ÖMPSQ-SF score the predicted chance of returning to work reduced by 4% (i.e., hazard ratio = 0.96), p < 0.001. Sensitivity and specificity for the ROC analysis comparing ÖMPSQ-SF total score to return to PID within 2-7 weeks suggested 48 as the optimal cut off (sensitivity = 0.65, specificity = 0.79). Conclusion The results provide strong support for the use of the ÖMPSQ-SF in an applied setting for identifying those IW likely to have delayed RTW when administered within 15 days of the injury. While a score of 48/100 was the optimal cut point for sensitivity and specificity, pragmatically, 50/100 should be acceptable as a cut-off in future studies of this type.

Back and neck pain prevalence and their association with physical inactivity domains in adolescents.

PURPOSE: Back pain affects people of all ages. This may be associated with physical inactivity, and in the case of physical activity in different domains, the relationship with back pain is not clear in the literature. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of low back and neck pain and investigate their association in different domains of physical inactivity. METHODS: 1011 randomly selected students participated in this study. Neck and back pain were assessed using the Nordic questionnaire, whereas the Baecke Physical Activity questionnaire was used to measure physical activity domains. Separate Binary Logistic Regression models were performed to investigate the association of physical activity domains with neck or back pain. RESULTS: 17.4% of the students reported cervical pain, while 18.0% reported low back pain. Older adolescents had a higher prevalence of cervical pain (24.4%) than younger adolescents (11.9%) (p value <0.001), as well as lumbar pain, being 25.1% in older adolescents and 12.4% in younger (p value <0.001). Adolescents physically inactive in the school environment were less likely to have pain in the cervical region [OR 0.67 (0.44-0.99)] or back pain [OR 0.60 (0.40-0.91)]. Being inactive in occupational activities was associated with cervical pain [OR 1.49 (1.06-2.10)]. Being inactive in the sports environment presented a marginal relationship with pain in the cervical region [OR 1.41 (0.99-2.02)]. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of neck and low back pain was higher in older adolescents and physical inactivity in the sporting context and occupational activities could be a risk factor to increase the chances of back pain.

Self-reported moderate-to-vigorous leisure time physical activity predicts less pain and disability over 12 months in chronic and persistent low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Physical deconditioning in combination with societal and emotional factors has been hypothesized to compromise complete recovery from low back pain (LBP). However, there is a lack of longitudinal studies designed to specifically investigate physical activity as an independent prognostic factor. We conducted a prognostic study to investigate whether levels of leisure time physical activity are independently associated with clinical outcomes in people seeking care for chronic and persistent LBP. METHODS: A total of 815 consecutive patients presenting with LBP to an outpatient spine centre in secondary care were recruited. Separate multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to investigate whether levels of leisure time physical activity (i.e., sedentary, light and moderate-to-vigorous leisure time physical activity levels) predict pain and disability at 12-month follow-up, after adjusting for age, pain, episode duration, disability, neurological symptoms, depression and fear of movement. RESULTS: Final models showed evidence of an association between baseline physical activity and 12-month outcomes (p < 0.001). In both models, the moderate-to-vigorous physical activity group reported less pain and disability compared with the sedentary group. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that physical activity levels may have a role in the prognosis of LBP. Specific domains of physical activity warrant further investigation to better understand this association.

How is radiating leg pain defined in randomized controlled trials of conservative treatments in primary care? A systematic review.

Many terms exist to describe radiating leg pain or symptoms associated with back pain (e.g., sciatica or radiculopathy) and it appears that these terms are used inconsistently. We examined the terms used to describe, and the eligibility criteria used to define, radiating leg pain in randomized controlled trials of conservative treatments, and evaluated how the eligibility criteria compared to an international pain taxonomy. Eligible studies were identified from two systematic reviews and an updated search of their search strategy. Studies were included if they recruited adults with radiating leg pain associated with back pain. Two independent reviewers screened the studies and extracted data. Studies were grouped according to the terms used to describe radiating leg pain. Thirty-one of the seventy-seven included studies used multiple terms to describe radiating leg pain; the most commonly used terms were sciatica (60 studies) and disc herniation (19 studies). Most studies that used the term sciatica included pain distribution in the eligibility criteria, but studies were inconsistent in including signs (e.g., neurological deficits) and imaging findings. Similarly, studies that used other terms to describe radiating leg pain used inconsistent eligibility criteria between studies and to the pain taxonomy, except that positive imaging findings were required for almost all studies that used disc herniation to describe radiating leg pain. In view of the varying terms to describe, and eligibility criteria to define, radiating leg pain, consensus needs to be reached for each of communication and comparison between studies.