Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Musculoskeletal disorders of the spine in the US military account for the single largest proportion of the absence of sickness causes leading to early termination. We explored if selected psychological and physical factors were associated with poor outcome after episodes of low back pain (LBP). PURPOSE: To identify clinical, demographic, and psychological factors predictive of work duty status after a complaint of LBP. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective clinical cohort of US Navy personnel treated for LBP. PATIENT SAMPLE: Eligible cases were active duty US Navy or Marine Corps personnel presenting to an emergency clinic or primary care clinic with a complaint of LBP, where the index episode of LBP was no more than 12 weeks duration before enrollment. OUTCOME MEASURES: The subject's work status (full duty, light duty, sick in quarters [SIQ], limited duty, or medically released to full duty) was abstracted from the subject's electronic medical record at approximately 4 weeks and then again 12 weeks after study enrollment. Work status in this study population is assigned by a Navy health-care provider at the time of a clinical visit and based on the health-care provider's determination of medical fitness for duty. This study collapsed work status into two groups, "full duty" (consisting of "full duty" and "medically released to full duty") and "not at full duty" (consisting of "light duty," "SIQ," and "limited duty"). METHODS: Volunteers completed a baseline questionnaire consisting of recommended well-validated measures, including attitudes and beliefs about LBP and work (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire [FABQ] and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia), distress (the Pain Catastrophizing Scale), clinical depression (The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale), a numeric pain intensity scale, self-perceived disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and general health status (12-Item Short Form Health Survey). Navy health-care providers conducted a back pain-specific medical evaluation. Associations are expressed as multivariate-adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) estimated using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-three participants were enrolled. Work status outcome was collected for 239 participants. Predictors of "not at full duty" at 4 weeks after enrollment included having back pain for 4 weeks or less before study enrollment (PR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.21-5.97) and increased FABQ Work subscale score (PR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08). The sole predictor of work status at 12 weeks after enrollment was increased FABQ Physical Activity (FABQ Physical) subscale score (PR=1.14; 95% CI, 1.00-1.30). CONCLUSIONS: The findings that fear-avoidance beliefs were predictive of subsequent work status among active duty service personnel in this study population (after adjusting for clinical, demographic, and psychological covariates) suggest the clinical utility of addressing these factors during treatment of back pain episodes in the military. These findings reflect the important role that psychological factors may play in the return to work process in an active duty military population.

PURPOSE: The aim of this cohort study was to identify early predictive factors for a poor outcome of disability and pain 12- and 36-months after an intervention in patients with recurrent low-back pain, currently at work. METHOD: Seventy-one patients with recurrent low-back pain, all at work, seeking care in a primary health care setting were included. Predictive indicators including demographic data and health-related variables were derived from questionnaires pre- and post intervention over eight weeks. The dependent outcome variables were perceived disability and present pain at 12- and 36-months. RESULTS: Multivariate regression analyses show that early data on poor self-efficacy for physical activity, greater disability, and higher level of pain-ratings emerged as independent predictors of a poor outcome of disability at 12 and 36 months. Higher ratings of pain and poor self-efficacy appeared again as independent predictors of a poor outcome of pain at the 12-month follow-up. Pain frequency ratings predicted a poor outcome of pain at 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that ratings of poor self-efficacy for physical activity, greater disability, and pain-ratings, are the most consistent independent predictors of long-term poor outcome of disability and pain. This indicates the importance of screening for such factors to optimize the management of low-back pain. However, larger studies in similar patient populations are needed to confirm these results.

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

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