scholarly journals Are the treatment expectations of 'significant others' psychosocial obstacles to work participation for those with persistent low back pain?

Work ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 391-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serena McCluskey ◽  
Joanna Brooks ◽  
Nigel King ◽  
Kim Burton
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Significant Others ◽  
Work Participation ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Treatment Expectations

scholarly journals The Dutch Multidisciplinary Occupational Health Guideline to Enhance Work Participation Among Low Back Pain and Lumbosacral Radicular Syndrome Patients

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. W. H. Luites ◽  
P. P. F. M. Kuijer ◽  
C. T. J. Hulshof ◽  
R. Kok ◽  
M. W. Langendam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Work Participation ◽  
Stepped Care ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Lumbosacral Radicular Syndrome ◽  
Care Approach ◽  
Radicular Syndrome

AbstractPurpose Based on current scientific evidence and best practice, the first Dutch multidisciplinary practice guideline for occupational health professionals was developed to stimulate prevention and enhance work participation in patients with low back pain (LBP) and lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS). Methods A multidisciplinary working group with health care professionals, a patient representative and researchers developed the recommendations after systematic review of evidence about (1) Risk factors, (2) Prevention, (3) Prognostic factors and (4) Interventions. Certainty of the evidence was rated with GRADE and the Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework was used to formulate recommendations. High or moderate certainty resulted in a recommendation “to advise”, low to very low in a recommendation “to consider”, unless other factors in the framework decided differently. Results An inventory of risk factors should be considered and an assessment of prognostic factors is advised. For prevention, physical exercises and education are advised, besides application of the evidence-based practical guidelines “lifting” and “whole body vibration”. The stepped-care approach to enhance work participation starts with the advice to stay active, facilitated by informing the worker, reducing workload, an action plan and a time-contingent increase of work participation for a defined amount of hours and tasks. If work participation has not improved within 6 weeks, additional treatments should be considered based on the present risk and prognostic factors: (1) physiotherapy or exercise therapy; (2) an intensive workplace-oriented program; or (3) cognitive behavioural therapy. After 12 weeks, multi-disciplinary (occupational) rehabilitation therapy need to be considered. Conclusions Based on systematic reviews and expert consensus, the good practice recommendations in this guideline focus on enhancing work participation among workers with LBP and LRS using a stepped-care approach to complement existing guidelines focusing on recovery and daily functioning.

scholarly journals Prognosis and course of work-participation in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: A 12-month follow-up cohort study

2015 ◽  
Vol 47 (9) ◽  
pp. 854-859 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Verkerk ◽  
P Luijsterburg ◽  
A Pool-Goudzwaard ◽  
M Heymans ◽  
I Ronchetti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Work Participation ◽  
Low Back

scholarly journals Efficacy of Directional Preference Management for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

2012 ◽  
Vol 92 (5) ◽  
pp. 652-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke D. Surkitt ◽  
Jon J. Ford ◽  
Andrew J. Hahne ◽  
Tania Pizzari ◽  
Joan M. McMeeken
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Work Participation ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Directional Preference ◽  
Efficacy Of Treatment

BackgroundProviding specific treatment based on symptom response for people with low back pain (LBP) and a directional preference (DP) is a widely used treatment approach. The efficacy of treatment using the principles of directional preference management (DPM) for LBP is unclear.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of treatment using the principles of DPM for people with LBP and a DP.MethodsComputer databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English up to January 2010. Only RCTs investigating DPM for people with LBP and a DP were included. Outcomes for pain, back specific function, and work participation were extracted.ResultsSix RCTs were included in this review. Five were considered high quality. Clinical heterogeneity of the included trials prevented meta-analysis. GRADE quality assessment revealed mixed results; however, moderate evidence was identified that DPM was significantly more effective than a number of comparison treatments for pain, function, and work participation at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-ups. No trials found that DPM was significantly less effective than comparison treatments.ConclusionsAlthough this systematic review showed mixed results, some evidence was found supporting the effectiveness of DPM when applied to participants with a DP, particularly at short-term and intermediate-term follow-ups. Further high-quality RCTs are warranted to evaluate the effect of DPM applied to people with LBP and a DP.

Effects of specific muscle activation for low back pain on activity limitation, pain, work participation, or recurrence: A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 102276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon J. Ford ◽  
Shannon E. Bower ◽  
Isabella Ford ◽  
Mariana M. de Mello ◽  
Samantha R. Carneiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Muscle Activation ◽  
Work Participation ◽  
Activity Limitation ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Specific Muscle

Employment status five years after a randomised controlled trial comparing multidisciplinary and brief intervention in employees on sick leave due to low back pain

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 383-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pernille Pedersen ◽  
Claus Vinther Nielsen ◽  
Ole Kudsk Jensen ◽  
Chris Jensen ◽  
Merete Labriola
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Sick Leave ◽  
Brief Intervention ◽  
Employment Status ◽  
Work Participation ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Multidisciplinary Intervention ◽  
The Mean

Aims: To evaluate differences in employment status, during a five-year follow-up period in patients on sick leave due to low back pain who had participated in a trial comparing a brief and a multidisciplinary intervention. Methods: From 2004 to 2008, 535 patients were referred to the Spine Centre at the Regional Hospital in Silkeborg if they had been on sick leave for 3–16 weeks due to low back pain. All patients underwent a clinical examination by a rehabilitation physician and a physiotherapist, and were randomised to either the brief intervention or the multidisciplinary intervention. The outcome was employment status from randomisation to five years of follow-up and was measured by the mean number of weeks in four different groups of employment status (sequence analysis) and a fraction of the number of weeks working (work participation score) that were accumulated over the years. Results: A total of 231 patients were randomised to the brief intervention and 233 patients to the multidisciplinary intervention. No statistically significant differences in the mean weeks spent within the different employment statuses were found between the two intervention groups. After five years of follow-up, participants in the multidisciplinary intervention had a 19% higher risk of not having a work participation score above 75% compared to participants in the brief intervention. Conclusions: After five years of follow-up no differences in employment status were found between participants in the brief and the multidisciplinary intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document