Physical Activity and Exercise Interventions in the Workplace Impacting Work Outcomes: A Stakeholder-Centered Best Evidence Synthesis of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The prevention of work disability is beneficial to employees and employers, and mitigates unnecessary societal costs associated with social welfare. Many service providers and employers have initiated workplace interventions designed to reduce unnecessary work disability. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a best-evidence synthesis of systematic reviews on workplace interventions that address physical activities or exercise and their impact on workplace absence, work productivity or financial outcomes. METHODS: Using a participatory research approach, academics and stakeholders identified inclusion and exclusion criteria, built an abstraction table, evaluated systematic review quality and relevance, and interpreted the combined findings. A minimum of two scientists participated in a methodological review of the literature followed by a consensus process. RESULTS: Stakeholders and researchers participated as a collaborative team. 3363 unique records were identified, 115 full text articles and 46 systematic reviews were included, 18 assessed the impact of physical fitness or exercise interventions. 11 focused on general workers rather than workers who were absent from work at baseline; 16 of the reviews assessed work absence, 4 assessed productivity and 6 assessed financial impacts. CONCLUSION: The strongest evidence supports the use of short, simple exercise or fitness programs for both workers at work and those absent from work at baseline. For workers at work, simple exercise programs (1-2 modal components) appear to provide similar benefits to those using more complex multimodal interventions. For workers off-work with subacute low back pain, there is evidence that some complex exercise programs may be more effective than simple exercise interventions, especially if they involve workplace stakeholder engagement, communication and coordination with employers and other stakeholders. The development and utilization of standardized definitions, methods and measures and blinded evaluation would improve research quality and strengthen stakeholder-centered guidance.

Mental Health Interventions in the Workplace and Work Outcomes: A Best-Evidence Synthesis of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Mental health issues in the workplace are a growing concern among organizations and policymakers, but it remains unclear what interventions are effective in preventing mental health problems and their associated organizational consequences. This synthesis reports on workplace mental health interventions that impact absenteeism, productivity and financial outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of evidence supporting mental health interventions as valuable to work outcomes. METHODS: Databases were searched for systematic reviews between 2000 and 2012: Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and TRIP. Grey literature searches included health-evidence.ca, Rehab+, National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC), and Institute for Work and Health. The assessment of articles for inclusion criteria and methodological quality was conducted independently by two or more researchers, with differences resolved through consensus. RESULTS: The search resulted in 3363 titles, of which 3248 were excluded following title/abstract review, with 115 articles retrieved for full-text review. 14 articles finally met the inclusion criteria and are summarized in this synthesis. CONCLUSION: There is moderate evidence for the effectiveness of workplace mental health interventions on improved workplace outcomes. Certain types of programs, such as those incorporating both mental and physical health interventions, multicomponent mental health and/or psychosocial interventions, and exposure in vivo containing interventions for particular anxiety disorders had a greater level of research evidence to support their effectiveness.

Social Support and Supervisory Quality Interventions in the Workplace: A Stakeholder-Centered Best-Evidence Synthesis of Systematic Reviews on Work Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy surrounding the impact of workplace interventions aimed at improving social support and supervisory quality on absenteeism, productivity and financial outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of social support interventions for work outcomes. METHODS: Databases were searched for systematic reviews between 2000 and 2012 to complete a synthesis of systematic reviews guided by the PRISMA statement and the IOM guidelines for systematic reviews. Assessment of articles for inclusion and methodological quality was conducted independently by at least two researchers, with differences resolved by consensus. RESULTS: The search resulted in 3363 titles of which 3248 were excluded following title/abstract review, leaving 115 articles that were retrieved and underwent full article review. 10 articles met the set inclusion criteria, with 7 focusing on social support, 2 on supervisory quality and 1 on both. We found moderate and limited evidence, respectively, that social support and supervisory quality interventions positively impact workplace outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is moderate evidence that social support and limited evidence that supervisory quality interventions have a positive effect on work outcomes.

Job demand and control interventions: a stakeholder-centered best-evidence synthesis of systematic reviews on workplace disability.

BACKGROUND: Physical and psychological job demands in combination with the degree of control a worker has over task completion, play an important role in reducing stress. Occupational stress is an important, modifiable factor affecting work disability. However, the effectiveness of reducing job demands or increasing job control remains unclear, particularly for outcomes of interest to employers, such as absenteeism or productivity. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review reports on job demand and control interventions that impact absenteeism, productivity and financial outcomes. METHODS: A stakeholder-centered best-evidence synthesis was conducted with researcher and stakeholder collaboration throughout. Databases and grey literature were searched for systematic reviews between 2000 and 2012: Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, TRIP, health-evidence.ca, Rehab+, National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC), and Institute for Work and Health. Articles were assessed independently by two researchers for inclusion criteria and methodological quality. Differences were resolved through consensus. RESULTS: The search resulted in 3363 unique titles. After review of abstracts, 115 articles were retained for full-text review. 11 articles finally met the inclusion criteria and are summarized in this synthesis. The best level of evidence we found indicates that multimodal job demand reductions for either at-work or off-work workers will reduce disability-related absenteeism. CONCLUSION: In general, the impacts of interventions that aim to reduce job demands or increase job control can be positive for the organization in terms of reducing absenteeism, increasing productivity and cost-effectiveness. However, more high quality research is needed to further assess the relationships and quantify effect sizes for the interventions and outcomes reviewed in this study.

A prospective study of the effectiveness of early intervention with high-risk back-injured workers--a pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: It was postulated that workers, at the sub-acute stage after injury, respond differently to clinical and occupational interventions offered in a workers' compensation environment. Individual worker risk of disability, it was further believed, would influence the effectiveness of early intervention. The objective of the current pilot study was to evaluate return to work (RTW) outcomes following proactive, combined clinical, occupational and case management-based interdisciplinary early intervention, provided in a workers' compensation environment 4-10 weeks of onset of back pain, to workers with medium and high risk for disability. METHODS: The project was a controlled study comparing conventional workers' compensation case management with integrated, interdisciplinary and multimodal early intervention (hereinafter referred to as "EI"). At baseline, risk status was determined by a validated Risk for Disability Questionnaire by Carragee et al. (Spine 5(1):24-35, 2005). Seventeen workers at high risk of protracted disability and 20 workers at moderate risk of disability received conventional case management, and 17 workers assessed at high risk of protracted disability and 18 workers at moderate risk of disability received the Early Intervention. RESULTS: At 3 months post back pain onset, no statistically significant differences were identified in RTW outcomes between conventional case management and the Early Intervention. However, by 6 months post back pain onset, workers at high risk of work disability who received the Early Intervention were significantly more likely to RTW than high risk workers who received conventional case management. In contrast, moderate risk workers continued to exhibit no statistically significant differences in RTW outcomes. CONCLUSION: Multimodal Early Intervention in the workers' compensation case management context is likely effective for workers with sub-acute back pain who are at high risk of occupational disability. The comprehensive Early Intervention is, however, likely redundant for workers who are not at high risk for disability and should not be applied indiscriminately. Further studies are required to determine longer-term Early Intervention outcomes, and to replicate the findings using a randomized control design. Also, with a larger sample size, it will be possible to determine predictors of occupational outcomes.

Predicting return to work after low back injury using the Psychosocial Risk for Occupational Disability Instrument: a validation study.

INTRODUCTION: This paper reports on the predictive validity of a Psychosocial Risk for Occupational Disability Scale in the workers' compensation environment using a paper and pencil version of a previously validated multimethod instrument on a new, subacute sample of workers with low back pain. METHODS: A cohort longitudinal study design with a randomly selected cohort off work for 4-6 weeks was applied. The questionnaire was completed by 111 eligible workers at 4-6 weeks following injury. Return to work status data at three months was obtained from 100 workers. Sixty-four workers had returned to work (RTW) and 36 had not (NRTW). RESULTS: Stepwise backward elimination resulted in a model with these predictors: Expectations of Recovery, SF-36 Vitality, SF-36 Mental Health, and Waddell Symptoms. The correct classification of RTW/NRTW was 79%, with sensitivity (NRTW) of 61% and specificity (RTW) of 89%. The area under the ROC curve was 84%. CONCLUSIONS: New evidence for predictive validity for the Psychosocial Risk-for-Disability Instrument was provided. IMPLICATIONS: The instrument can be useful and practical for prediction of return to work outcomes in the subacute stage after low back injury in the workers' compensation context.

Psychosocial factors predictive of occupational low back disability: towards development of a return-to-work model.

This paper focuses on the identification and testing of potential psychosocial factors contributing to an integrated multivariate predictive model of occupational low back disability. Psychosocial predictors originate from five traditions of psychosocial research: psychopathological, cognitive, diathesis-stress, human adaptation and organizational psychology. The psychosocial variables chosen for this study reflect a full range of research findings. They were investigated using 253 subacute and chronic pain injured workers. Three outcome measures were utilized: return-to-work status, duration of disability and disability costs. The key psychosocial predictors identified were expectations of recovery and perception of health change. Also implicated, but to a lesser degree, were occupational stability, skill discretion at work, co-worker support, and the response of the workers' compensation system and employer to the disability. All psychosocial models were better at predicting who will return than who will not return to work.

Reliability of the lumbar flexion, lumbar extension, and passive straight leg raise test in normal populations embedded within a complete physical examination.

STUDY DESIGN: The study measured the reliability of the passive straight leg raise (SLR) test and lumbar range of motion (LROM) tests measured as continuous variables embedded within a comprehensive physical examination. OBJECTIVES: To determine the reliability of the SLR and LROM test scores when they are measured with a Cybex electronic inclinometer (Lumex, Inc., New York, NY) within a physical examination. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Good published empirical reliability exists for the Cybex and for SLR and LROM tests when the measurements are taken in isolation from other physical examination procedures. Reliability of the Cybex for continuous SLR and LROM measurement within a physical examination has not been assessed, however. METHODS: Forty-five participants were seen by one of two physician/physiotherapist teams. Participants were examined by both team members. The first examiner conducted the first tests and retested 1 week later (intrarater reliability). The second examined the participants the day after their first appointment (inter-rater reliability). RESULTS: Only two scores showed substantial reliability (defined as r > or = 0.60). These scores were left (r = 0.81) and right (r = 0.79) SLR intrarater reliability. All other scores fell below the specified cutoff. CONCLUSIONS: SLR and LROM scores used clinically are collected during comprehensive physical examinations. Most scores gathered under these conditions were not reliable. These findings have implications for the use of clinically derived SLR and LROM scores.

Commentary on the American Medical Association guides' lumbar impairment validity checks.

STUDY DESIGN: The American Medical Association's (AMA) Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment range of motion-based (ROM) lumbar impairment model validity checks were reviewed. Published literature of lumbar ROM (LROM) testing also was reviewed for application of the AMA validity checking protocols. OBJECTIVE: The utility and feasibility of use of the AMA Guides' ROM lumbar impairment ratings were examined. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although they appear to be essential components of the ROM model, few published studies report use of these validity checks. Of at least 22 reviewed studies of LROM testing, only six studies included at least three measurements (the bare minimum) of LROM. Furthermore, only two (9.1%) reported performance of the LROM validity check. Only one, however, reported the results. METHODS: English language journals were searched on Medline using "region, lumbar," "range of motion," "validity of results," "observer variation," and "low back pain" as title and subject search terms. The study methodologies approximating the AMA Guides' specifications were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Under normal conditions of ROM measurement, 33% of three consecutive lumbar flexion and 27% of three consecutive lumbar extension measurements failed the LROM validity check. In addition, across three different experimental sessions (each with more than three consecutive LROM measurements taken) only 15 participants (33%) had valid flexion scores and only 24 participants (53%) had valid extension scores across all three sessions. CONCLUSION: Technical complications inherent in the ROM-based impairment-rating model render the validity checks difficult to perform satisfactorily and thus rarely used.

Analysis of the convergent and discriminant validity of published lumbar flexion, extension, and lateral flexion scores.

STUDY DESIGN: Articles reflecting the convergent or discriminant validity of the lumbar range of motion tests were reviewed and compared. Mean scores and standard deviations for lumber range of motion from healthy control subjects were plotted against those from patients with low back injuries. OBJECTIVE: To use published research to analyze the convergent and discriminant validity of lumbar range of motion tests for the characterization of low back pain and injury. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several publications have addressed lumbar range of motion validity. Individual studies suggest that the tests possess convergent validity, but that their discriminant validity is indeterminate. METHODS: English-language journals were searched on Medline using "region," "lumbar," "range of motion," "validity of results," "observer variation," and "low back pain" as title and subject search terms. The study methods approximating the specifications of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Convergent validity research showed inconsistent relations between inclinometric and radiographic lumbar range of motion measurements. Some studies showed strong relation, whereas others showed essentially no relation between the two techniques. Correlations between lumbar range of motion scores and spinal disability and function were similarly inconclusive. Studies reporting mean scores and standard deviations for lumbar range of motion measurements showed a high degree of overlap between the scores of participants with low back injuries and those without such injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Convergent and discriminant validities of the lumbar range of motion tests currently require further substantiation. Absolute lumbar range of motion scores may not be suitable as the sole determinants of low back pathology diagnosis. Implications for using the lumbar range of motion tests to characterize low back injuries in medicolegal situations are discussed.