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.

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

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is prevalent and is a frequent cause of disability and sick leave among working adults. Individuals with low back pain often consult general practice or other health care providers which often results in a unilateral intervention focussed on their symptoms. Employment is associated with physical and mental well-being, so, patients may benefit from an early additional occupational medicine intervention. For individuals with physically demanding jobs it can be especially challenging to retain their jobs. The aim of the 'GoBack trial' is to develop and evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of an occupational medicine intervention for individuals with low back pain in physically demanding jobs. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a randomised controlled trial enrolling 300 participants with difficulty in maintaining physically demanding jobs due to low back pain for a current period of 2 to 4 weeks. Participants will be randomised and stratified according to their age and gender before being allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either control or additional occupational medicine intervention. Both groups will receive conventional treatment for their low back pain during the study. All participants will be thoroughly assessed for causes of low back pain and potential prognostic factors by questionnaires, clinical specialist assessments and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the lumbar spine. Primary outcome is the accumulated duration of self-assessed sick leave (in days) due to low back pain during 6 months from baseline. Secondary outcomes include general self-rated back pain, disability and screening for potential prognostic factors: fear avoidance behaviour, disability, health status and degenerative MRI findings. For tertiary purposes selected outcomes will also be assessed after 1 and 2 years from baseline. DISCUSSION: Many guidelines exist for the management of low back pain, but they provide limited guidance on occupational aspects. The findings from this randomised trial will provide high-quality evidence for the efficacy and feasibility of an occupational medicine intervention model for individuals with low back pain in physically demanding jobs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02015572 ) on 29 November 2013.

Does computer use affect the incidence of distal arm pain? A one-year prospective study using objective measures of computer use.

PURPOSE: To study how objectively recorded mouse and keyboard activity affects distal arm pain among computer workers. METHODS: Computer activities were recorded among 2,146 computer workers. For 52 weeks mouse and keyboard time, sustained activity, speed and micropauses were recorded with a software program installed on the participants' computers. Participants reported weekly pain scores via the software program for elbow, forearm and wrist/hand as well as in a questionnaire at baseline and 1-year follow up. Associations between pain development and computer work were examined for three pain outcomes: acute, prolonged and chronic pain. RESULTS: Mouse time, even at low levels, was associated with acute pain in a similar way for all the examined regions. There were no exposure-response threshold patterns. Keyboard time had no effect. Mouse and keyboard sustained activity, speed and micropauses were not risk factors for acute pain, nor did they modify the effects of mouse or keyboard time. Computer usage parameters were not associated with prolonged or chronic pain. A major limitation of the study was low keyboard times. CONCLUSION: Computer work was not related to the development of prolonged or chronic pain. Mouse time was associated with acute distal arm pain, but the impact was quite small.

The role of physical examinations in studies of musculoskeletal disorders of the elbow.

OBJECTIVES: To present data on pain and physical findings from the elbow region, and to discuss the role of diagnostic criteria in epidemiological studies of epicondylitis. METHODS: From a cohort of computer workers a subgroup of 1369 participants, who reported at least moderate pain in the neck and upper extremities, were invited to a standardised physical examination. Two independent physical examinations were performed-one blinded and one not blinded to the medical history. Information concerning musculoskeletal symptoms was obtained by a baseline questionnaire and a similar questionnaire completed on the day of examination. RESULTS: 349 participants met the authors' criteria for being an arm case and 249 were elbow cases. Among the 1369 participants the prevalence of at least mild palpation tenderness and indirect tenderness at the lateral epicondyle was 5.8%. The occurrence of physical findings increased markedly by level of pain score. Only about one half with physical findings fulfilled the authors' pain criteria for having lateral epicondylitis. A large part with physical findings reported no pain at all in the elbow in any of the two questionnaires, 28% and 22%, respectively. Inter-examiner reliability between blinded and not blinded examination was found to be low (kappa value (0.34-0.40)). CONCLUSION: Very few with at least moderate pain in the elbow region met common specific criteria for lateral epicondylitis. The occurrence of physical findings increased markedly by level of pain score and the associations were strongest with pain intensity scores given just before the examination. Physical signs were commonly found in subjects with no pain complaints. No further impact was achieved if the physical examination was not blinded to the medical history. Furthermore, the authors propose that pain, clinical signs and disability are studied as separate outcomes, and that the diagnoses of lateral epicondylitis should be used only for cases with classical signs of inflammation reflected by severe pain, which for example conveys some disability.

Validity of questionnaire self-reports on computer, mouse and keyboard usage during a four-week period.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity and potential biases in self-reports of computer, mouse and keyboard usage times, compared with objective recordings. METHODS: A study population of 1211 people was asked in a questionnaire to estimate the average time they had worked with computer, mouse and keyboard during the past four working weeks. During the same period, a software program recorded these activities objectively. The study was part of a one-year follow-up study from 2000-1 of musculoskeletal outcomes among Danish computer workers. RESULTS: Self-reports on computer, mouse and keyboard usage times were positively associated with objectively measured activity, but the validity was low. Self-reports explained only between a quarter and a third of the variance of objectively measured activity, and were even lower for one measure (keyboard time). Self-reports overestimated usage times. Overestimation was large at low levels and declined with increasing levels of objectively measured activity. Mouse usage time proportion was an exception with a near 1:1 relation. Variability in objectively measured activity, arm pain, gender and age influenced self-reports in a systematic way, but the effects were modest and sometimes in different directions. CONCLUSION: Self-reported durations of computer activities are positively associated with objective measures but they are quite inaccurate. Studies using self-reports to establish relations between computer work times and musculoskeletal pain could be biased and lead to falsely increased or decreased risk estimates.

Elbow and wrist/hand symptoms among 6,943 computer operators: a 1-year follow-up study (the NUDATA study).

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine relations between computer work aspects and elbow and wrist/hand pain conditions and disorders. METHODS: In a 1-year follow-up study among 6,943 technical assistants and machine technicians self-reported active mouse and keyboard time, ergonomic exposures and associations with elbow and wrist/hand pain were determined. Standardized clinical examinations were performed among symptomatic participants at baseline and at follow-up. RESULTS: For continuous duration of mouse time adjusted linear effects were statistically significant for all investigated pain conditions. For continuous duration of keyboard time the corresponding effects were statistically significant for wrist/hand pain conditions except incident 'severe' wrist/hand pain. There were no threshold effects above 0 hr per week (hr/w) of mouse exposure in association with pain conditions, while keyboard exposure showed a threshold effect with 12-month wrist/hand pain at follow-up. Clinical diagnoses were not associated with exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed examination of self-reported exposures showed that mouse and keyboard time predicted elbow and wrist/hand pain from low exposure levels without a threshold effect, but mouse and keyboard time were not predictors of clinical conditions.

Computer use and carpal tunnel syndrome: a 1-year follow-up study.

CONTEXT: Computer use is increasingly common among many working populations, and concern exists about possible adverse effects of computer use, such as carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence and incidence of possible CTS and to evaluate the contribution of use of mouse devices and keyboards to the risk of possible CTS. DESIGN AND SETTING: A 1-year follow-up study with questionnaires conducted in 2000 and 2001 at 3500 workplaces in Denmark, followed on each of the 2 occasions by a clinical interview on symptom distribution and frequency. PARTICIPANTS: The questionnaire was sent to 9480 members of a trade union, with an initial response rate of 73% (n = 6943), and 82% (n = 5658) at follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At baseline, there were 3 outcome measures: tingling/numbness in the right hand once a week or more as reported in the questionnaire; tingling, numbness, and pain in the median nerve in the right hand confirmed by clinical interview; and tingling, numbness, and pain in the median nerve in the right hand at night confirmed by clinical interview. At 1 year of follow-up the main outcome of interest was onset of symptoms among participants who had no or minor symptoms at baseline. RESULTS: The overall self-reported prevalence of tingling/numbness in the right hand at baseline was 10.9%. The interview confirmed that prevalence of tingling/numbness in the median nerve was 4.8%, of which about one third, corresponding to a prevalence of 1.4%, experienced symptoms at night. Onset of new symptoms in the 1-year follow-up was 5.5%. In the cross-sectional comparisons and in the follow-up analyses, there was an association between use of a mouse device for more than 20 h/wk and risk of possible CTS but no statistically significant association with keyboard use. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of possible CTS in the right hand was low. The study emphasizes that computer use does not pose a severe occupational hazard for developing symptoms of CTS.