Scandinavian journal of public health
-
Scand J Public Health · Aug 2016
Randomized Controlled TrialReduction in sick leave by a workplace educational low back pain intervention: A cluster randomized controlled trial.
The aim of this study was to investigate whether a workplace educational low back pain intervention had an effect on sick leave at the individual level and to identify possible predictors of the effect of intervention. ⋯ The intervention group had significantly less days of sick leave at the three month (4.9 days, p=0.001) and six month (4.4 days, p=0.016) follow ups compared with the control group. At three months, a low level of pain-related fear was the only predictor for the intervention effect (8.0 less days of sick leave, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS A WORKPLACE EDUCATIONAL BACK PAIN INTERVENTION HAD AN EFFECT ON SICK LEAVE FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS A LOW SCORE ON PAIN-RELATED FEAR WAS A PREDICTOR OF THE INTERVENTION EFFECT.
-
Scand J Public Health · Aug 2016
Randomized Controlled TrialA multi-faceted workplace intervention targeting low back pain was effective for physical work demands and maladaptive pain behaviours, but not for work ability and sickness absence: Stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.
The aims of this study were to test whether a multi-faceted intervention effective for low back pain was effective for physical capacity, work demands, maladaptive pain behaviours, work ability and sickness absence due to low back pain. ⋯ Significant reduction in occupational lifting (-0.35 (95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.08)), and improvement in two measures of fear avoidance ((-0.75 (95% confidence interval -1.05 to -0.45) and -0.45 (95% confidence interval -0.80 to -0.11)) were found for the intervention group compared to the control. There were no significant effects on physical exertion, muscle strength, support from management, work ability or sickness absence due to low back pain. After the intervention, significant increased physical capacity and improvements in kinesiophobia were found, but no change in need for recovery. CONCLUSIONS THE INTERVENTION WAS SIGNIFICANTLY EFFECTIVE FOR PHYSICAL WORK DEMANDS AND MALADAPTIVE PAIN BEHAVIOURS, BUT NOT FOR WORK ABILITY AND SICKNESS ABSENCE DUE TO LOW BACK PAIN TO IMPROVE WORK ABILITY OR REDUCE SICKNESS ABSENCE DUE TO LOW BACK PAIN MORE SPECIFIC INTERVENTIONS SHOULD PROBABLY BE DEVELOPED.