Faculty Bibliography

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

Unremitting lower-back pain has long been a costly and personally devastating problem in society. Guidelines for the treatment of lower-back pain have provided evidence-based recommendations to help identify patients who will benefit from specific types of treatment in an effort to reduce costs and human suffering. However, there is little evidence that these guidelines are being applied in the daily practice of health care providers. Practical information is required to assist health care providers in triaging patients for specific treatments so that interventions can be targeted only to those who need them. In this way, iatrogenic complications and unnecessary costs can be contained. This chapter provides information on how to triage the patient with nonspecific lower-back pain for optimal care. The recommendations are supported by evidence-based guidelines, and when these are not available, best practice principles. Because appropriate treatment varies depending on the length of time a patient is suffering from lower-back pain, the chapter is divided into recommendations for acute, subacute, chronic and recurrent phases of lower-back pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V (expert opinion). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of the levels of evidence

The purpose of this chapter is to promote a model to prevent chronicity and disability from non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). Delayed recovery is defined in this chapter as the period between 4 and 8 weeks after onset of NSLBP during which a patient has not yet returned to work. The recognition of predictors associated with delayed recovery at onset of the problem helps health care providers in their treatment plan. An algorithm can be useful for health care providers and employers in guiding the employee back to work. A multidisciplinary return to work programme is an essential part of the algorithm

We have developed an educational program to train industry-based physicians in a new low back pain assessment procedure based on the recommendation of The Clinical Practice Guidelines on Acute Low Back Pain Problems in Adults published by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The clinical classification system based on the findings from the Quebec Task Force was used to categorize the subjects. The educational program included group and individual sessions with an extensive period of active follow-up. Protocol compliance was measured through a computer-based surveillance system that monitored evaluation form completion. The results showed significant change (p < 0.001) in physician compliance in completing a standardized examination following an administrative mandate to change. Little change in clinical practice was recorded with an educational training program only. Further research into the factors responsible for the results is suggested

Health care providers often prescribe exercises as treatment for nonspecific low back pain. However, the effectiveness of this treatment is poorly documented in the literature. While the evidence suggests that exercise in general is beneficial, there is a lack of knowledge about the types, frequency and duration of exercises that should be prescribed and at what stage of injury they are most helpful. In addition, few studies have dealt with exercise treatment alone rather than in combination with other treatments, making it hard to decipher the unique contribution of exercise. Inadequate study designs also make conclusions difficult. Conversely, the literature clearly shows that inactivity has detrimental effects (i.e. delayed return to normal activity, and negative physiological and psychological effects) for low back pain patients