IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002898.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Early occupational intervention for people with low back pain in physically demanding jobs: A randomized clinical trial

Author

Listed:
  • Bjarke Brandt Hansen
  • Lilli Kirkeskov
  • Luise Moelenberg Begtrup
  • Mikael Boesen
  • Henning Bliddal
  • Robin Christensen
  • Ditte Lundsgaard Andreasen
  • Lars Erik Kristensen
  • Esben Meulengracht Flachs
  • Ann Isabel Kryger

Abstract

Background: Occupational medicine seeks to reduce sick leave; however, evidence for an add-on effect to usual care is sparse. The objective of the GOBACK trial was to test whether people with low back pain (LBP) in physically demanding jobs and at risk of sick leave gain additional benefit from a 3-month complex intervention that involves occupational medicine consultations, a work-related evaluation and workplace intervention plan, an optional workplace visit, and a physical activity program, over a single hospital consultation and an MRI. Methods and findings: We enrolled people from the capital region of Denmark to an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with a superiority design from March 2014 through December 2015. In a hospital setting 305 participants (99 women) with LBP and in physically demanding jobs were randomized to occupational intervention (n = 153) or no additional intervention (control group; n = 152) added to a single hospital consultation giving a thorough explanation of the pain (i.e., clinical examination and MRI) and instructions to stay active and continue working. Primary outcome was accumulated sick leave days due to LBP during 6 months. Secondary outcomes were changes in neuropathic pain (painDETECT questionnaire [PDQ]), pain 0–10 numerical rating scale (NRS), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) for physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and self-assessed ability to continue working (range 0–10). An intention-to-treat analysis of sick leave at 6 months showed no significant difference between groups (mean difference in days suggestively in favor of no additional intervention: 3.50 [95% CI –5.08 to 12.07], P = 0.42). Both groups showed significant improvements in average pain score (NRS), disability (RMDQ), fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activities and work (FABQ), and physical HRQoL (SF-36 physical component summary); there were no significant differences between the groups in any secondary outcome. There was no statistically significant improvement in neuropathic pain (PDQ score), mental HRQoL (SF-36 mental component summary), and self-assessed ability to stay in job. Four participants could not complete the MRI or the intervention due to a claustrophobic attack or accentuated back pain. Workplace visits may be an important element in the occupational intervention, although not always needed. A per-protocol analysis that included the 40 participants in the intervention arm who received a workplace visit as part of the additional occupational intervention did not show an add-on benefit in terms of sick leave (available cases after 6 months, mean difference: –0.43 days [95% CI –12.8 to 11.94], P = 0.945). The main limitations were the small number of sick leave days taken and that the comprehensive use of MRI may limit generalization of the findings to other settings, for example, general practice. Conclusions: When given a single hospital consultation and MRI, people in physically demanding jobs at risk of sick leave due to LBP did not benefit from a complex additional occupational intervention. Occupational interventions aimed at limiting biopsychological obstacles (e.g., fear-avoidance beliefs and behaviors), barriers in the workplace, and system barriers seem essential to reduce sick leave in patients with LBP. This study indicates that these obstacles and barriers may be addressed by thorough usual care. Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov: NCT02015572 In a randomized trial, Bjarke Brandt Hansen and colleagues study a complex occupational intervention for patients with low back pain.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Bjarke Brandt Hansen & Lilli Kirkeskov & Luise Moelenberg Begtrup & Mikael Boesen & Henning Bliddal & Robin Christensen & Ditte Lundsgaard Andreasen & Lars Erik Kristensen & Esben Meulengracht Flachs , 2019. "Early occupational intervention for people with low back pain in physically demanding jobs: A randomized clinical trial," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002898
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002898
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002898&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002898?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fabrizio Russo & Giuseppe Francesco Papalia & Gianluca Vadalà & Luca Fontana & Sergio Iavicoli & Rocco Papalia & Vincenzo Denaro, 2021. "The Effects of Workplace Interventions on Low Back Pain in Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-17, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002898. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.