Faculty Bibliography

The process of rehabilitation, accommodation and return-to-work entails an assessment of a patient's ability to engage in work activities, an analysis of job demands and the matching of these elements to determine whether the individual and the job are compatible. The process involves numerous stakeholders, whereby ergonomists may analyze the demands of the job, clinicians may assess the individual's abilities and the matching is conducted as a joint effort. The success of the joint effort depends on the communication between several professional disciplines. To improve the communication we need tools that advance the decision making. The process of 'ergonomics for one' requires tools and methodologies of sufficient resolution to address the individual's needs. From the ergonomist's perspective, do we have tools that support clinical decision making regarding the ability of an individual patient to return to work? Similarly, does the ergonomist have tools to assist in adapting the job to the individual's abilities? The session is aimed for practitioners involved in industrial ergonomics as well as rehabilitation. The panel will examine several attempts to address these questions conceptually or practically, limiting the scope of the discussion to rehabilitation and accommodations of physical impairments. The goal of the session is to identify areas and directions that need further research and development

STUDY DESIGN: A cohort study of patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP) participated in a 4-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that predict work retention 24 months after treatment in patients with nonspecific LBP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is evidence that select physical, psychologic, and psychosocial factors are related to positive outcome for work-related nonspecific LBP. However, there is very little information related to work retention following an episode of nonspecific LBP. This is an exploratory study to identify select physical and psychosocial factors related to work retention. METHODS: Patients who returned to work after treatment (n = 67) were followed for 2 years. Physical baseline measures included tests of flexibility, strength, and functional capacity. Psychosocial baseline measures were The Symptoms Checklist 90-R, The Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory, The Oswestry Scale of perceived disability, The Work Stress Inventory, and The Quality of Life Scale. All physical parameters, perceived disability, and quality of life were tested before and after treatment. The dependent variable, work retention, was defined as the number of days that the subject worked during the 2-year follow-up period. Survival analysis was used to establish the predictive model. RESULT: The average time out of work before treatment was 9 months (standard deviation 12.8) for 67 subjects (mean age 40 years [standard deviation 9.6]), including 18 females and 49 males. There were 18 participants (25%) that had interruption of work retention at follow-up. Average work retention was 362 days (range 47-682). Variables that reached a P value of <0.10 in the bivariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis. They were trunk flexion (hazard ratio [HR = 2.4], 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-4.38; P = 0.01), trunk extension (HR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.02-4.16; P = 0.04), the somatization scale from the Symptom Checklist 90 revised (HR = 2.0, 95% CI 1.03-4.05; P = 0.04), and the obsessive-compulsiveness scale from the Symptom Checklist 90 revised (HR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.12-1.15; P = 0.09). Results showed that post-test trunk flexion, somatization, and obsessive compulsiveness predicted work retention (final trunk flexion HR = 2.5 [95% CI 1.26-4.79; P = 0.01], somatization scale HR = 2.5 [95% CI 1.25-4.93; P = 0.01], and obsessive compulsion HR = 0.2 [95% CI 0.07-0.77; P = 0.02]). CONCLUSION: Psychosocial and physical factors are associated with work retention for patients with nonspecific LBP. The predictive value of certain constructs may vary with the time when they are assessed and how outcome is operationalized. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings

Low back pain represents a serious public health problem. Therefore, great efforts have been made in order to improve and assess the efficacy of its treatment. Reports in international literature have presented important studies concerning instruments to assess pain and functional incapacity in patients with low back pain. This study presents a clinical protocol which was developed by a multidisciplinary team. This protocol consists of the evaluation and distribution of pain, The Spitzer Quality of Life, The Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, and The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale. Instruments must be urgently developed or adapted in order to be used according to the Brazilian reality

OBJECTIVE: Great efforts have been made to find effective treatments for back pain. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of a particular treatment can depend on patient compliance. The objective of this study was to prospectively investigate whether patients' demographic factors, clinical factors, external barriers in following the treatment, and perceptions of disability, quality of life, depression, and control over health were predictive of compliance with a physical therapy program carried out with patients with low back pain. METHODS: This was an exploratory prospective cohort study that was carried out in New York City during 1999. All study participants answered a questionnaire at the initial clinical evaluation by a physical therapist and were followed during the treatment. The study assessed compliance with the three treatment regimens that were prescribed for every patient: attending scheduled physical therapy sessions, following a program of home exercises, and watching back-education videotapes. Depending on the individual patient, the planned treatment program could last from 2 to 6 weeks. The study employed a battery of instruments to measure patient characteristics that included perceived functional limitations, perceived quality of life, depression, and their beliefs about their health. Student's t tests and chi-square tests were used to determine if non- and low-compliant patients differed significantly from high-compliant patients. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios expressing the association of selected variables with compliance. RESULTS: We found that 51% of the patients were either noncompliant or low-compliant overall with the low back pain treatment program. There were differences in compliance behavior among the three treatment regimens, with compliance being highest for watching the back-education videotapes and lowest for doing the home exercises. Poor compliance overall was positively associated with the expectation of barriers in following the proposed treatment, with comorbidity, and with longer duration of treatment in this program. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our study indicate that patient compliance with back pain treatment is a serious and complex problem. Nevertheless, while this study was only an exploratory one, we believe that the results of this study can be used by care providers to identify patients likely to become noncompliant and also by researchers to plan specific studies on the effectiveness of treatment programs for patients with low back pain

Guidelines recommend minimal medical intervention for acute non-specific low back pain. However, patients often request strategies to reduce symptoms and recover quickly. Self-care techniques that do not contradict current evidence-based recommendations may be suggested. Self-care techniques can reduce costs and iatrogenic complications that can occur with medical treatment. They may also increase the patient's perception of control and improve long-term outcome. A shift in paradigm for the health care provider and the patient is required for self-care to be successful. These issues, as well as self-care approaches such as medication, exercises, modalities and mind-body techniques are discussed. Practice points for each approach are given