Association between lifting and use of medication for low back pain: results from the Backworks Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate relationships between lifting and lowering of loads and risk of low back pain resulting in medication use (M-LBP). METHODS: At baseline, worker demographics, psychosocial factors, hobbies, LBP history, and lifting and lowering (quantified using the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation) were assessed. A cohort of 258 incident-eligible workers was followed up for 4.5 years to determine new M-LBP cases and changes in lifting/lowering requirements. Proportional hazards regression with time-varying covariates was used to model associations. RESULTS: Factors predicting M-LBP included peak lifting index (PLI) and composite lifting index (PCLI), LBP history, anxiety, and housework. In adjusted models, PLI and PCLI showed exposure-response relationships with peak hazard ratios of 3.8 and 4.3, respectively (P ≤ 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Lifting of loads is associated with increased risk of M-LBP. The PLI and PCLI are useful metrics for estimating the risk of M-LBP from lifting.

The NIOSH lifting equation and low-back pain, Part 1: Association with low-back pain in the backworks prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate relationships between the revised NIOSH lifting equation (RNLE) and risk of low-back pain (LBP). BACKGROUND: The RNLE is commonly used to quantify job physical stressors to the low back from lifting and/or lowering of loads. There is no prospective study on the relationship between RNLE and LBP that includes accounting for relevant covariates. METHOD: A cohort of 258 incident-eligible workers from 30 diverse facilities was followed for up to 4.5 years. Job physical exposures were individually measured. Worker demographics, medical history, psychosocial factors, hobbies, and current LBP were obtained at baseline. The cohort was followed monthly to ascertain development of LBP and quarterly to determine changes in job physical exposure. The relationship between LBP and peak lifting index (PLI) and peak composite lifting index (PCLI) were tested in multivariate models using proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Point and lifetime prevalences of LBP at baseline were 7.1% and 75.1%, respectively. During follow-up, there were 123 incident LBP cases. Factors predicting development of LBP included job physical exposure (PLI and PCLI), history of LBP, psychosocial factors, and housework. In adjusted models, risk (hazard ratio [HR]) increased per-unit increase in PLI and PCLI (p = .05 and .02; maximum HR = 4.3 and 4.2, respectively). PLI suggested a continuous increase in risk with an increase in PLI, whereas the PCLI showed elevated, but somewhat reduced, risk at higher exposures. CONCLUSION: Job physical stressors are associated with increased risk of LBP. Data suggest that the PLI and PCLI are useful metrics for estimating exposure to job physical stressors.

The NIOSH lifting equation and low-back pain, Part 2: Association with seeking care in the backworks prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the revised NIOSH lifting equation (RNLE) and risk of seeking care for low-back pain (SC-LBP). BACKGROUND: The RNLE is commonly used to quantify low-back physical stressors from lifting/lowering of loads in workplaces. There is no prospective study on relationship between RNLE and SC-LBP. METHOD: A cohort of 258 incident-eligible workers from 30 diverse facilities was followed for up to 4.5 years. Job physical exposures were individually measured. Worker demographics, medical history, psychosocial factors, hobbies, and current low-back pain were obtained at baseline. The cohort was followed monthly to ascertain SC-LBP and quarterly to determine changes in physical exposure. Associations between SC-LBP and both the peak lifting index (PLI) and peak composite lifting index (PCLI) were tested in multivariate models using proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: SC-LBP lifetime prevalence at baseline was 31.9%, and there were 24 incident cases during follow-up. Factors predicting SC-LBP included job physical exposure (PLI and PCLI), history of low-back pain, age, female gender, and lower body mass index. In adjusted models, risk (hazard ratio [HR]) increased per unit increase in PLI and PCLI (p = .03 and .02, and maximum HR = 23.0 and 21.9, respectively). Whereas PCLI suggested a continuous increase in risk with an increase in PCLI, the PLI showed elevated, though somewhat reduced, risk at higher exposures (HR = 14.9 at PLI = 6). CONCLUSION: Job physical stressors are associated with increased risk of SC-LBP. Data suggest that both the PLI and PCLI are useful metrics for estimating exposure to job physical stressors.

Study protocol title: a prospective cohort study of low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Few prospective cohort studies of workplace low back pain (LBP) with quantified job physical exposure have been performed. There are few prospective epidemiological studies for LBP occupational risk factors and reported data generally have few adjustments for many personal and psychosocial factors. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-center prospective cohort study has been incepted to quantify risk factors for LBP and potentially develop improved methods for designing and analyzing jobs. Due to the subjectivity of LBP, six measures of LBP are captured: 1) any LBP, 2) LBP ≥ 5/10 pain rating, 3) LBP with medication use, 4) LBP with healthcare provider visits, 5) LBP necessitating modified work duties and 6) LBP with lost work time. Workers have thus far been enrolled from 30 different employment settings in 4 diverse US states and performed widely varying work. At baseline, workers undergo laptop-administered questionnaires, structured interviews, and two standardized physical examinations to ascertain demographics, medical history, psychosocial factors, hobbies and physical activities, and current musculoskeletal disorders. All workers' jobs are individually measured for physical factors and are videotaped. Workers are followed monthly for the development of low back pain. Changes in jobs necessitate re-measure and re-videotaping of job physical factors. The lifetime cumulative incidence of low back pain will also include those with a past history of low back pain. Incident cases will exclude prevalent cases at baseline. Statistical methods planned include survival analyses and logistic regression. DISCUSSION: Data analysis of a prospective cohort study of low back pain is underway and has successfully enrolled over 800 workers to date.

Friction-reducing devices for lateral patient transfers: a clinical evaluation.

The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of lateral transfer devices compared with the traditional draw sheet method in acute care settings through subjective feedback of caregivers actually using the devices. Every 2 weeks, the eight participating acute care units each received one of the devices, which had been randomly selected. Data were collected through caregiver surveys, which rated comfort, ease of use, perceived injury risk, time efficiency, and patient safety. An overall performance rating was calculated as the sum of these five categories. Caregivers rated air-assisted devices significantly higher (p < .05) than other devices. Lateral transfer devices are recommended over the traditional draw sheet method for performing lateral patient transfers. These friction-reducing devices are a cost-effective solution to the load of lateral patient transfers and should be favorably considered when purchasing patient-handling technologies.