Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: The influence on the treatment response in patients with low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) is unknown. The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of body weight in patients with low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) on baseline and end of treatment disability. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline factors. Longitudinal analysis of prospectively collected patient information at an outpatient physical therapy registry (data from June 2010 to December 2012). WHO-BMI classification was used: underweight, lean, overweight, obesity class I, obesity class II and III. The influence of body weight and a predefined set of confounders was analyzed by multiple regression models. RESULTS: In LBP, disability increased with increasing BMI [lean = reference, obesity class I Beta 5.41 (95 % CI 0.75; 10.07), obesity class II-III Beta 7.58 (95 % CI 2.13; 13.03)]. Compared to lean patients, disability after treatment improved in overweight subjects [Beta -3.90 (95 % CI -7.4; -0.41)] but not in subjects with obesity class II-III [Beta 3.43 (95 % CI -3.81; 10.68)]. There were insufficient patients in the sample with severe obesity and therefore this trend has to be confirmed. The likelihood for meaningful important change (MID) was similar in all BMI subgroups. For patients with NP, BMI was not associated with baseline disability, and did not predict end of treatment disability or the likelihood of a MID. These findings must be interpreted with caution as BMI subgroups did not meet the required sample size. CONCLUSION: Overweight and obesity are associated with higher levels of disability before treatment in LBP patients, but not in NP. In severely obese patients class II-III with LBP the rate of MID was lowest indicating that these patients experienced the least treatment response compared to the other groups. Further studies should address the impact of severe obesity on the prognosis of LBP. In patients with LBP, severe obesity may be an important factor to consider during the physical therapy treatment. In particular, combined treatment strategies combining weight management, cardiovascular fitness, and low back pain rehabilitation should be investigated.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal conditions account for the largest proportion of cases resulting in early separation from the US Navy. This study evaluates the impact of the Spine Team, a multidisciplinary care group that included physicians, physical therapists, and a clinical psychologist, for the treatment of active-duty service members with work-disabling, nonspecific low back pain at the Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA, USA. We compared the impact of the introduction of the Spine Team in limiting disability and attrition from work-disabling spine conditions with the experience of the Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA, USA, where there is no comparable spine team. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Is a multidisciplinary spine team effective in limiting disability and attrition related to work-disabling spine conditions as compared with the current standard of care for US military active-duty service members? METHODS: This is a retrospective, pre-/post-study with a separate, concurrent control group using administratively collected data from two large military medical centers during the period 2007 to 2009. In this study, disability is expressed as the proportion of active-duty service members seeking treatment for a work-disabling spine condition that results in the assignment of a first-career limited-duty status. Attrition is expressed as the proportion of individuals assigned a first-career limited-duty status for a work-disabling spine condition who were referred to a Physical Evaluation Board. We analyzed 667 individuals assigned a first-career limited-duty for a work-disabling spine condition between 2007 and 2009 who received care at the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth or Naval Medical Center San Diego. RESULTS: Rates of first-career limited-duty assignments for spine conditions decreased from 2007 to 2009 at both sites, but limited-duty rates decreased to a greater extent at the intervention site (Naval Medical Center Portsmouth; from 8.5 per 100 spine cases in 2007 to 5.1 per 100 cases in 2009, p < 0.001) as compared with the control site (Naval Medical Center San Diego; 16.0 per 100 spine cases in 2007 and 14.1 per 100 cases in 2009, p = 0.38) after the Spine Team was implemented in 2008. The risk of disability was lower at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth as compared with Naval Medical Center San Diego for each of the 3 years studied (in 2007, the relative risk was 0.53 [95% confidence limit {CL}, 0.42-0.68; p < 0.001]) indicating a protective effect of Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in limiting disability (in 2008, it was 0.58 [95% CL, 0.45-0.73; p < 0.001] and in 2009 0.34 [95% CL, 0.27-0.47; p < 0.001]); the relative risk improved in 2009 after the introduction of the Spine Team at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth. There were no differences observed in rates of attrition from the period before the introduction of the Spine Team to after at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, and no overall differences could be statistically detected between the two sites. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides suggestive evidence that a multi-disciplinary Spine Team may be effective in limiting disability. No conclusion can be drawn about the Spine Team's effectiveness in limiting attrition. Additional study is warranted to examine the effect of the timing of the introduction of multidisciplinary care for work-disabling spine conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

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.

The aim of the pilot study was to evaluate a multidisciplinary program for nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) at a major U.S. Navy base. In this single blinded randomized clinical trial, subjects were drawn from a larger, prospective cohort of active duty service members seeking care for NSLBP pain at a U.S. Navy Branch Medical Clinic. Outcome measures included return to work, self-reported pain, function, and psychological distress. Subjects were randomly allocated to one of two study arms: a multidisciplinary reconditioning program or the current standard of care for low back pain. The intervention lasted 4 weeks with a 12-week follow-up. Thirty-three subjects were enrolled. Subjects allocated to multidisciplinary care reported significantly lower perceived disability (p = 0.014) and less pain than those allocated to usual care at the end of the intervention period. All subjects returned to their usual duty following the conclusion of the intervention. The implementation of the intervention program was successful. Subjects in the multidisciplinary program showed a clinically significant improvement in the perception of disability compared to the usual care group. This is an important finding since perception of disability is associated with long-term functional outcome.

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