Contribution of individual, workplace, psychosocial and physiological factors to neck pain in female office workers

This study investigated the relative contribution of individual, workplace, psychosocial and physiological features associated with neck pain in female office workers towards developing appropriate intervention programs. Workers without disability (Neck Disability Index (NDI) score≤8, n=33); workers with neck pain and disability (NDI≥9/100, n=52) and 22 controls (women who did not work and without neck pain) participated in this study. Two logistic regression models were constructed to test the association between various measures in (1) workers with and without disability, and (2) workers without disability and controls. Measures included those found to be significantly associated with higher NDI in our previous studies: psychosocial domains; individual factors; task demands; quantitative sensory measures and measures of motor function. In the final model, higher score on negative affectivity scale (OR=4.47), greater activity in the neck flexors during cranio-cervical flexion (OR=1.44), cold hyperalgesia (OR=1.27) and longer duration of symptoms (OR=1.19) remained significantly associated with neck pain in workers. Workers without disability and controls could only be differentiated by greater muscle activity in the cervical flexors and extensors during a typing task. No psychosocial domains remained in either regression model. These results suggest that impairments in the sensory and motor system should be considered in any assessment of the office worker with neck pain and may have stronger influences on the presenting symptoms than workplace and psychosocial features.

Research on injury compensation and health outcomes : ignoring the problem of reverse causality led to a biased conclusion

Objective This study highlights the serious consequences of ignoring reverse causality bias in studies on compensation-related factors and health outcomes and demonstrates a technique for resolving this problem of observational data. Study Design and Setting Data from an English longitudinal study on factors, including claims for compensation, associated with recovery from neck pain (whiplash) after rear-end collisions are used to demonstrate the potential for reverse causality bias. Although it is commonly believed that claiming compensation leads to worse recovery, it is also possible that poor recovery may lead to compensation claims—a point that is seldom considered and never addressed empirically. This pedagogical study compares the association between compensation claiming and recovery when reverse causality bias is ignored and when it is addressed, controlling for the same observable factors. Results When reverse causality is ignored, claimants appear to have a worse recovery than nonclaimants; however, when reverse causality bias is addressed, claiming compensation appears to have a beneficial effect on recovery, ceteris paribus. Conclusion To avert biased policy and judicial decisions that might inadvertently disadvantage people with compensable injuries, there is an urgent need for researchers to address reverse causality bias in studies on compensation-related factors and health.

Confirmatory factory analysis of the Neck Disability Index in a general problematic neck population indicates a one-factor model

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The Neck Disability Index frequently is used to measure outcomes of the neck. The statistical rigor of the Neck Disability Index has been assessed with conflicting outcomes. To date, Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Neck Disability Index has not been reported for a suitably large population study. Because the Neck Disability Index is not a condition-specific measure of neck function, initial Confirmatory Factor Analysis should consider problematic neck patients as a homogenous group. PURPOSE: We sought to analyze the factor structure of the Neck Disability Index through Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a symptomatic, homogeneous, neck population, with respect to pooled populations and gender subgroups. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of pooled data. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 1,278 symptomatic neck patients (67.5% female, median age 41 years), 803 nonspecific and 475 with whiplash-associated disorder. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Neck Disability Index was used to measure outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed pooled baseline data from six independent studies of patients with neck problems who completed Neck Disability Index questionnaires at baseline. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis was considered in three scenarios: the full sample and separate sexes. Models were compared empirically for best fit. RESULTS: Two-factor models have good psychometric properties across both the pooled and sex subgroups. However, according to these analyses, the one-factor solution is preferable from both a statistical perspective and parsimony. The two-factor model was close to significant for the male subgroup (p<.07) where questions separated into constructs of mental function (pain, reading headaches and concentration) and physical function (personal care, lifting, work, driving, sleep, and recreation). CONCLUSIONS: The Neck Disability Index demonstrated a one-factor structure when analyzed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a pooled, homogenous sample of neck problem patients. However, a two-factor model did approach significance for male subjects where questions separated into constructs of mental and physical function. Further investigations in different conditions, subgroup and sex-specific populations are warranted.

Non-invasive measurement of trigeminal nerve somatosensory evoked potentials

Whiplash injuries are common yet enigmatic to substantiate clinically. Trigeminal somatosensory evoked potentials (TSEPs) were posited as an indicator of trigeminal nerve conduction damage resulting from whiplash. Alternating polarity square-wave current stimuli were applied transcutaneously in the facial region. 379 recorded pilot trials from 27 participants (8 male and 19 female) were utilized to develop a non-invasive recording capability for TSEPs. Stimulus intensity and artifact, cortical recording sites, stimulation electrode design and placement were explored. Statistically significant differences in amplitude of TSEP waveform components at 13, 19 and 27 ms between uninjured and whiplashed participants were noted. Increased stimulus intensity in whiplashed participants was observed to increase TSEP amplitude. The present methodology and hardware are discussed and directions for future advancement of the current process are outlined.

Factor Structure of the Neck Disability Index

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The Neck Disability Index frequently is used to measure outcomes of the neck. The statistical rigor of the Neck Disability Index has been assessed with conflicting outcomes. To date, Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Neck Disability Index has not been reported for a suitably large population study. Because the Neck Disability Index is not a condition-specific measure of neck function, initial Confirmatory Factor Analysis should consider problematic neck patients as a homogenous group. PURPOSE: We sought to analyze the factor structure of the Neck Disability Index through Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a symptomatic, homogeneous, neck population, with respect to pooled populations and gender subgroups. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of pooled data. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 1,278 symptomatic neck patients (67.5% female, median age 41 years), 803 nonspecific and 475 with whiplash-associated disorder. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Neck Disability Index was used to measure outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed pooled baseline data from six independent studies of patients with neck problems who completed Neck Disability Index questionnaires at baseline. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis was considered in three scenarios: the full sample and separate sexes. Models were compared empirically for best fit. RESULTS: Two-factor models have good psychometric properties across both the pooled and sex subgroups. However, according to these analyses, the one-factor solution is preferable from both a statistical perspective and parsimony. The two-factor model was close to significant for the male subgroup (p<.07) where questions separated into constructs of mental function (pain, reading headaches and concentration) and physical function (personal care, lifting, work, driving, sleep, and recreation). CONCLUSIONS: The Neck Disability Index demonstrated a one-factor structure when analyzed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a pooled, homogenous sample of neck problem patients. However, a two-factor model did approach significance for male subjects where questions separated into constructs of mental and physical function. Further investigations in different conditions, subgroup and sex-specific populations are warranted.