Occupational, personal and psychosocial resources for preventing persistent low back pain

The aim of this prospective cohort study was to identify modifiable protective factors of the progression of acute/subacute low back pain (LBP) to the persistent state at an early stage to reduce the socioeconomic burden of persistent LBP. Patients attending a health practitioner for acute/subacute LBP were assessed at baseline addressing occupational, personal and psychosocial factors, and followed up over 12 weeks. Pearson correlations were calculated between these baseline factors and the presence of nonpersistent LBP at 12-week follow-up. For those factors found to be significant, multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. The final 3-predictor model included job satisfaction, mental health and social support. The accuracy of the model was 72%, with 81% of nonpersistent and 60% of persistent LBP patients correctly identified. Further research is necessary to confirm the role of different types of social support regarding their prognostic influence on the development of persistent LBP.

Predictors of sickness absence in patients with a new episode of low back pain in primary care

This study examines predictors of sickness absence in patients presenting to a health practitioner with acute/ subacute low back pain (LBP). Aims of this study were to identify baseline-variables that detect patients with a new LBP episode at risk of sickness absence and to identify prognostic models for sickness absence at different time points after initial presentation. Prospective cohort study investigating 310 patients presenting to a health practitioner with a new episode of LBP at baseline, three-, six-, twelve-week and six-month follow-up, addressing work-related, psychological and biomedical factors. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify baseline-predictors of sickness absence at different time points. Prognostic models comprised 'job control', 'depression' and 'functional limitation' as predictive baseline-factors of sickness absence at three and six-week follow-up with 'job control' being the best single predictor (OR 0.47; 95%CI 0.26-0.87). The six-week model explained 47% of variance of sickness absence at six-week follow-up (p<0.001). The prediction of sickness absence beyond six-weeks is limited, and health practitioners should re-assess patients at six weeks, especially if they have previously been identified as at risk of sickness absence. This would allow timely intervention with measures designed to reduce the likelihood of prolonged sickness absence.

Prognostic occupational factors for persistent low back pain in primary care

To reduce the socio-economic burden of persistent low back pain (LBP), factors influencing the progression of acute/subacute LBP to the persistent state must be identified at an early stage.

Predictive value of the Acute Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire and the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire for persisting problems

A small proportion of individuals with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) develop persistent problems. Up to 80% of the total costs for NSLBP are owing to chronic NSLBP. Psychosocial factors have been described to be important in the transition from acute to chronic NSLBP. Guidelines recommend the use of the Acute Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire (ALBPSQ) and the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) to identify individuals at risk of developing persistent problems, such as long-term absence of work, persistent restriction in function or persistent pain. These instruments can be used with a cutoff value, where patients with values above the threshold are further assessed with a more comprehensive examination.

Identification of prognostic factors for chronicity in patients with low back pain: a review of screening instruments

Low back pain (LBP) is currently the most prevalent and costly musculoskeletal problem in modern societies. Screening instruments for the identification of prognostic factors in LBP may help to identify patients with an unfavourable outcome. In this systematic review screening instruments published between 1970 and 2007 were identified by a literature search. Nine different instruments were analysed and their different items grouped into ten structures. Finally, the predictive effectiveness of these structures was examined for the dependent variables including "work status", "functional limitation", and "pain". The strongest predictors for "work status" were psychosocial and occupational structures, whereas for "functional limitation" and "pain" psychological structures were dominating. Psychological and occupational factors show a high reliability for the prognosis of patients with LBP. Screening instruments for the identification of prognostic factors in patients with LBP should include these factors as a minimum core set.

The association between beliefs about low back pain and work presenteeism

OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of beliefs about low back pain (LBP) on reduced productivity at work ("presenteeism") caused by LBP. METHODS: Two thousand five hundred seven individuals completed the Back Beliefs Questionnaire, the Fear Avoidance Beliefs questionnaire (FABQ), and questions about LBP-related work-absence, reduced work-productivity, pain, comorbidity, and demographics. RESULTS: Six hundred seventy (25%) individuals were of working age, employed and reported current LBP. Univariate models showed beliefs were more "negative" in individuals with work-absence and reduced productivity (P = 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, controlling for confounders, "FABQwork" was a unique predictor of both absenteeism and presenteeism (each, P = 0.0001), though with small effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Negative beliefs about LBP are associated with both work absence and reduced work-productivity. Further investigations should examine their potential as a target for educational interventions when considering initiatives to reduce the socioeconomic costs of LBP.

Beliefs about back pain predict the recovery rate over 52 consecutive weeks

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the course of low-back pain over 52 weeks following current pain at baseline. Initial beliefs about the inevitability of the pain's negative consequences and fear avoidance beliefs were examined as potential risk factors for persistent low-back pain. METHODS: On a weekly basis over a period of one year, 264 participants reported both the intensity and frequency of their low-back pain and the degree to which it impaired their work performance. In a multilevel regression analysis, predictor variables included initial low-back pain intensity, age, gender, body mass index, anxiety/depression, participation in sport, heavy workload, time (1-52 weeks), and scores on the "back beliefs" and "fear-avoidance beliefs" questionnaires. RESULTS: The group mean values for both the intensity and frequency of weekly low-back pain, and the impairment of work performance due to such pain showed a recovery within the first 12 weeks. In a multilevel regression of 9497 weekly measurements, greater weekly low-back pain and impairment were predicted by higher levels of work-related fear avoidance beliefs. A significant interaction between time and the scores on both the work-related fear-avoidance and back beliefs questionnaires indicated faster recovery and pain relief over time in those who reported less fear-avoidance and fewer negative beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: Negative beliefs about the inevitability of adverse consequences of low-back pain and work-related, fear-avoidance beliefs are independent risk factors for poor recovery from low-back pain.

[Diagnostic pitfalls about a specific case of low back pain]

Diagnostic pitfalls about a specific case of low back pain Low back pain is classified into two principle categories: specific and non specific. This difference is important in terms of screening, medical care and treatment. Specific low back pain has various etiologies that imply specific treatment. This report describes one case of rare specific low back pain. The purpose of this article is to highlight the pitfalls that can represent such a common pathology, to show that obtaining an early diagnosis can be challenging, and finally to prevent care providers from stereotypes related to low back pain management.

Coping resources in a sample of chronic low back pain patients: Evaluation of the questionnaire for back pain

BACKGROUND The coping resources questionnaire for back pain (FBR) uses 12 items to measure the perceived helpfulness of different coping resources (CRs, social emotional support, practical help, knowledge, movement and relaxation, leisure and pleasure, spirituality and cognitive strategies). The aim of the study was to evaluate the instrument in a clinical patient sample assessed in a primary care setting. SAMPLE AND METHODS The study was a secondary evaluation of empirical data from a large cohort study in general practices. The 58 participating primary care practices recruited patients who reported chronic back pain in the consultation. Besides the FBR and a pain sketch, the patients completed scales measuring depression, anxiety, resilience, sociodemographic factors and pain characteristics. To allow computing of retested parameters the FBR was sent to some of the original participants again after 6 months (90% response rate). We calculated consistency and retest reliability coefficients as well as correlations between the FBR subscales and depression, anxiety and resilience scores to account for validity. By means of a cluster analysis groups with different resource profiles were formed. Results. RESULTS For the study 609 complete FBR baseline data sets could be used for statistical analysis. The internal consistency scores ranged fromα=0.58 to α=0.78 and retest reliability scores were between rTT=0.41 and rTT=0.63. Correlation with depression, fear and resilience ranged from r=-0.38 to r=0.42. The cluster analysis resulted in four groups with relatively homogenous intragroup profiles (high CRs, low spirituality, medium CRs, low CRs). The four groups differed significantly in fear and depression (the more inefficient the resources the higher the difference) as well as in resilience (the more inefficient the lower the difference). The group with low CRs also reported permanent pain with no relief. The groups did not otherwise differ. CONCLUSIONS The FBR is an economic instrument that is suitable for practical use e.g. in primary care practices to identify strengths and deficits in the CRs of chronic pain patients that can then be specified in face to face consultation. However, due to the rather low reliability, the use of subscales for profile differentiation and follow-up measurement in individual diagnoses is limited.