Cost of low back pain in Switzerland in 2005

Low back pain (LBP) is the most prevalent health problem in Switzerland and a leading cause of reduced work performance and disability. This study estimated the total cost of LBP in Switzerland in 2005 from a societal perspective using a bottom-up prevalence-based cost-of-illness approach. The study considers more cost categories than are typically investigated and includes the costs associated with a multitude of LBP sufferers who are not under medical care. The findings are based on a questionnaire completed by a sample of 2,507 German-speaking respondents, of whom 1,253 suffered from LBP in the last 4 weeks; 346 of them were receiving medical treatment for their LBP. Direct costs of LBP were estimated at 2.6 billion and direct medical costs at 6.1% of the total healthcare expenditure in Switzerland. Productivity losses were estimated at 4.1 billion with the human capital approach and 2.2 billion with the friction cost approach. Presenteeism was the single most prominent cost category. The total economic burden of LBP to Swiss society was between 1.6 and 2.3% of GDP.

Predicting the transition from acute to persistent low back pain

BACKGROUND: Most people experience low back pain (LBP) at least once in their lifetime. Only a minority of them go on to develop persistent LBP. However, the socioeconomic costs of persistent LBP significantly exceed the costs of the initial acute LBP episode. AIMS: To identify factors that influence the progression of acute LBP to the persistent state at an early stage. METHODS: Prospective inception cohort study of patients attending a health practitioner for their first episode of acute LBP or recurrent LBP after a pain free period of at least 6 months. Patients were assessed at baseline addressing occupational and psychological factors as well as pain, disability, quality of life and physical activity and followed up at 3, 6, 12 weeks and 6 months. Variables were combined to the three indices 'working condition', 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' and 'pain and quality of life'. RESULTS: The index 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' was found to be a significant baseline predictor for persistent LBP up to 6 months (OR 5.1; 95% CI: 1.04-25.1). Overall predictive accuracy of the model was 81%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with acute LBP in a primary care setting psychological factors at baseline correlated with a progression to persistent LBP up to 6 months. The benefit of including factors such as 'depression and maladaptive cognition' in screening tools is that these factors can be addressed in primary and secondary prevention.

Predicting the transition from acute to persistent low back pain

BACKGROUND: Most people experience low back pain (LBP) at least once in their lifetime. Only a minority of them go on to develop persistent LBP. However, the socioeconomic costs of persistent LBP significantly exceed the costs of the initial acute LBP episode. AIMS: To identify factors that influence the progression of acute LBP to the persistent state at an early stage. METHODS: Prospective inception cohort study of patients attending a health practitioner for their first episode of acute LBP or recurrent LBP after a pain free period of at least 6 months. Patients were assessed at baseline addressing occupational and psychological factors as well as pain, disability, quality of life and physical activity and followed up at 3, 6, 12 weeks and 6 months. Variables were combined to the three indices 'working condition', 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' and 'pain and quality of life'. RESULTS: The index 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' was found to be a significant baseline predictor for persistent LBP up to 6 months (OR 5.1; 95% CI: 1.04-25.1). Overall predictive accuracy of the model was 81%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with acute LBP in a primary care setting psychological factors at baseline correlated with a progression to persistent LBP up to 6 months. The benefit of including factors such as 'depression and maladaptive cognition' in screening tools is that these factors can be addressed in primary and secondary prevention.

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.

Development of a screening tool predicting the transition from acute to chronic low back pain for patients in a GP setting: protocol of a multinational prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is by far the most prevalent and costly musculoskeletal problem in our society today. Following the recommendations of the Multinational Musculoskeletal Inception Cohort Study (MMICS) Statement, our study aims to define outcome assessment tools for patients with acute LBP and the time point at which chronic LBP becomes manifest and to identify patient characteristics which increase the risk of chronicity. METHODS: Patients with acute LBP will be recruited from clinics of general practitioners (GPs) in New Zealand (NZ) and Switzerland (CH). They will be assessed by postal survey at baseline and at 3, 6, 12 weeks and 6 months follow-up. Primary outcome will be disability as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); key secondary endpoints will be general health as measured by the acute SF-12 and pain as measured on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). A subgroup analysis of different assessment instruments and baseline characteristics will be performed using multiple linear regression models. This study aims to examine: 1. Which biomedical, psychological, social, and occupational outcome assessment tools are identifiers for the transition from acute to chronic LBP and at which time point this transition becomes manifest. 2. Which psychosocial and occupational baseline characteristics like work status and period of work absenteeism influence the course from acute to chronic LBP. 3. Differences in outcome assessment tools and baseline characteristics of patients in NZ compared with CH. DISCUSSION: This study will develop a screening tool for patients with acute LBP to be used in GP clinics to access the risk of developing chronic LBP. In addition, biomedical, psychological, social, and occupational patient characteristics which influence the course from acute to chronic LBP will be identified. Furthermore, an appropriate time point for follow-ups will be given to detect this transition. The generalizability of our findings will be enhanced by the international perspective of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: [Clinical Trial Registration Number, ACTRN12608000520336].

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.

Comparison of pain-resilient working individuals to population-based case controls with/without momentary low back pain

Background: Few studies have examined the 20% of individuals who never experience an episode of low back pain (LBP). To date, no investigation has been undertaken that examines a group who claim to have never experienced LBP in their lifetime in comparison to two population-based case–control groups with and without momentary LBP. This study investigates whether LBP-resilient workers between 50 and 65 years had better general health, demonstrated more positive health behaviour and were better able to achieve routine activities compared with both case–control groups. Methods: Forty-two LBP-resilient participants completed the same pain assessment questionnaire as a population-based LBP sample from a nationwide, large-scale cross-sectional survey in Switzerland. The LBP-resilient participants were pairwise compared to the propensity score-matched case controls by exploring differences in demographic and work characteristics, and by calculating odds ratios (ORs) and effect sizes. A discriminant analysis explored group differences, while the multiple logistic regression analysis specified single indicators which accounted for group differences. Results: LBP-resilient participants were healthier than the case controls with momentary LBP and achieved routine activities more easily. Compared to controls without momentary LBP, LBP-resilient participants had a higher vitality, a lower workload, a healthier attitude towards health and behaved more healthily by drinking less alcohol. Conclusions: By demonstrating a difference between LBP-resilient participants and controls without momentary LBP, the question that arises is what additional knowledge can be attained. Three underlying traits seem to be relevant about LBP-resilient participants: personality, favourable work conditions and subjective attitudes/attributions towards health. These rationales have to be considered with respect to LBP prevention.

Depression impacts the course of recovery in patients with acute low back pain

Little is known about the course of recovery of acute low back pain (LBP) patients as a function of depression. In a prospective study, 286 acute LBP patients were assessed at baseline and followed up over 6 months. Recovery was defined as improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Repeated-measures analysis of covariance was employed with ODI as repeated factor, age, sex, and body mass index as covariates, depression and all other potential prognostic factors as between-subject factors. Of study participants, 18% were classified as depressive (>33 points on the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale). Of 286 participants, 135 were lost to follow-up. In the longitudinal sample of 151 patients the course of recovery was slower in depressive patients. Depression was associated with LBP especially after 6 weeks and should therefore be included in screening instruments for acute LBP patients to identify those at risk of delayed recovery at an early stage.

Who is likely to develop persistent low back pain? A longitudinal analysis of prognostic occupational factors

OBJECTIVE: Occupational low back pain (LBP) is considered to be the most expensive form of work disability, with the socioeconomic costs of persistent LBP exceeding the costs of acute and subacute LBP by far. This makes the early identification of patients at risk of developing persistent LBP essential, especially in working populations. The aim of the study was to evaluate both risk factors (for the development of persistent LBP) and protective factors (preventing the development of persistent LBP) in the same cohort. PARTICIPANTS: An inception cohort of 315 patients with acute to subacute or with recurrent LBP was recruited from 14 health practitioners (twelve general practitioners and two physiotherapists) across New Zealand. METHODS: Patients with persistent LBP at six-month follow-up were compared to patients with non-persistent LBP looking at occupational, psychological, biomedical and demographic/lifestyle predictors at baseline using multiple logistic regression analyses. All significant variables from the different domains were combined into a one predictor model. RESULTS: A final two-predictor model with an overall predictive value of 78% included social support at work (OR 0.67; 95%CI 0.45 to 0.99) and somatization (OR 1.08; 95%CI 1.01 to 1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Social support at work should be considered as a resource preventing the development of persistent LBP whereas somatization should be considered as a risk factor for the development of persistent LBP. Further studies are needed to determine if addressing these factors in workplace interventions for patients suffering from acute, subacute or recurrent LBP prevents subsequent development of persistent LBP.

Relationship between depressive symptoms and acute low back pain at first medical consultation, three and six weeks of primary care

Background: Aim of the study was to test lagged reciprocal effects of depressive symptoms and acute low back pain (LBP) across the first weeks of primary care. Methods: In a prospective inception cohort study, 221 primary care patients with acute or subacute LBP were assessed at the time of initial consultation and then followed up at three and six weeks. Key measures were depressive symptoms (modified Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale) and LBP (sensory pain, present pain index and visual analogue scale of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire). Results: When only cross-lagged effects of six weeks were tested, a reciprocal positive relationship between LBP and depressive symptoms was shown in a cross-lagged structural equation model (β = .15 and .17, p < .01). When lagged reciprocal paths at three- and six-week follow-up were tested, depressive symptoms at the time of consultation predicted higher LBP severity after three weeks (β = .23, p < .01). LBP after three weeks had in turn a positive cross-lagged effect on depression after six weeks (β = .27, p < .001). Conclusions: Reciprocal effects of depressive symptoms and LBP seem to depend on time under medical treatment. Health practitioners should screen for and treat depressive symptoms at the first consultation to improve the LBP treatment.

What is the best time point to identify patients at risk of developing persistent low back pain?

BACKGROUND Early identification of patients at risk of developing persistent low back pain (LBP) is crucial. OBJECTIVE Aim of this study was to identify in patients with a new episode of LBP the time point at which those at risk of developing persistent LBP can be best identified.METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 315 patients presenting to a health practitioner with a first episode of acute LBP. Primary outcome measure was functional limitation. Patients were assessed at baseline, three, six, twelve weeks and six months looking at factors of maladaptive cognition as potential predictors. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed for all time points. RESULTS The best time point to predict the development of persistent LBP at six months was the twelve-week follow-up (sensitivity 78%; overall predictive value 90%). Cognitions assessed at first visit to a health practitioner were not predictive. CONCLUSIONS Maladaptive cognitions at twelve weeks appear to be suitable predictors for a transition from acute to persistent LBP. Already three weeks after patients present to a health practitioner with acute LBP cognitions might influence the development of persistent LBP. Therefore, cognitive-behavioral interventions should be considered as early adjuvant LBP treatment in patients at risk of developing persistent LBP.

Low back pain risk factors associated with persistence, recurrence and delayed presentation

BACKGROUND: There is little knowledge in the literature on the role of time-related variables for the prognosis of acute and subacute low back pain (LBP). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the relationship between time-related LBP characteristics and prognostic factors for acute/subacute LBP. METHODS: We performed a prospective inception cohort study of 315 patients attending a health practitioner for acute/subacute LBP or recurrent LBP. One-tailed correlations were conducted between patient characteristics and time-related variables. RESULTS: The pattern of correlation between risk factors for and resources against persistent LBP differed between three time-related variables. 'Subacute LBP' and 'delayed presentation' were positively associated with psychological factors. Both indicators were negatively correlated with resources against development of persistent LBP. Moreover, 'delayed presentation' was related positively with occupational stressors. In contrast, 'recurrent LBP' was only related to more impaired health-related factors. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with current LBP waiting longer until seeking help in primary care have a more disadvantageous profile of occupational and psychological risk factors and lower resource levels. A similar but less pronounced pattern occurred in those with subacute LBP compared to those with acute LBP. Consideration of time characteristics of LBP may help to better understand LBP.