PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

S J Linton

Publications and source records attributed to S J Linton.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Quality of life and maintenance of improvements after early multimodal rehabilitation: a 5-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: There is a paucity of long-term evaluations on rehabilitation of musculoskeletal disorders, e.g., neck, shoulder or back pain. The aim of this study was to assess quality of life and the effect of early multimodal rehabilitation on 91 patients with musculoskeletal pain and disability at a 5-year follow-up. METHOD: The follow-up assessment, which included questions on pain, function, quality of life, perceived health, sick leave and psychosomatic symptoms, was performed 5 years after the assessment of baseline status. RESULTS: Improvements in pain, perceived health and psychosomatic symptoms were maintained at the 5-year follow-up. In addition, improvements in function, quality of life, and level of acceptable pain were significant in comparison to baseline. At the time of the baseline assessment all patients were on sick leave (13% were on partial sick leave). At the 5-year follow-up, 58% of the patients were at work part or full time. The results show that those working differed significantly from those not working at the 5-year follow-up on almost all variables, indicating that those working enjoy better health. The most salient prognostic factors for return to work were perceived health and educational level at the time of the baseline evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that treatment improved quality of life and the effects were basically maintained at 5 years. Work capacity as reflected in return to work increased greatly (81%) at a 1-year follow-up and was substantial (58%) at the 5-year follow-up. Moreover, perceived health and educational levels were important prognostic factors. Finally, the fact that patients working reported better health underscores the probable importance of return to work. Our results imply that it may be feasible to obtain long-term benefits from such a primary care-based intervention.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Behavioural treatment for chronic low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural treatment, commonly used in the treatment of chronic low-back pain (CLBP), is primarily focused at reducing disability through the modification of environmental contingencies and cognitive processes. In general, three behavioural treatment approaches are distinguished: operant, cognitive and respondent. OBJECTIVES: To determine if behavioural therapy is more effective than reference treatments for CLBP, and which type of behavioural treatment is most effective. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycLIT databases up to October 2003. References of identified randomised trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised trials on behavioural treatment for non-specific CLBP were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality and extracted the data. The magnitude of effect was assessed by computing a pooled effect size for post-treatment and long-term results for each comparison, for each domain (i.e., behavioural outcomes, overall improvement, back pain specific and generic functional status, return to work, and pain intensity) using the random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies (33%) were considered high quality. Comparing behavioural treatment to waiting list control (WLC) revealed strong evidence (4 trials, 134 people) in favour of a combined respondent-cognitive therapy for a medium positive effect on pain, and moderate evidence (2 trials, 39 people) in favour of progressive relaxation for a large positive effect on pain and behavioural outcomes (short-term only). When comparing operant treatment to WLC no significant differences could be detected on general functional status (strong evidence: 2 trials, 87 people) or on behavioural outcomes (moderate evidence; 3 trials, 153 people) (short-term only). There is limited evidence (1 trial, 98 people) that a graded activity program in an industrial setting is more effective than usual care for early return to work and reduced long-term sick leave. There is limited evidence (1 trail, 39 people) that there are no differences between behavioural treatment and exercises. Finally, there is moderate evidence (6 trials, 210 people) that there are no significant differences in short-term and long-term effectiveness when behavioural components are added to usual treatment programs for CLBP (i.e. physiotherapy, back education) on pain, generic functional status and behavioural outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Combined respondent-cognitive therapy and progressive relaxation therapy are more effective than WLC on short-term pain relief. However, it is unknown whether these results sustain in the long term. No significant differences could be detected between behavioural treatment and exercise therapy. Whether clinicians should refer patients with CLBP to behavioural treatment programs or to active conservative treatment cannot be concluded from this review.

Behavior Therapy↗
PubMed2001

Requests for body computed tomography: increasing workload, increasing indications and increasing age.

Increasing numbers of increasingly elderly patients were being examined in our Body CT department. At the same time, some of our clinical colleagues perceived that their patients might be discriminated against on the basis of their age when allocating CT time. We therefore studied the population trends in our department over a 10-year period. The ages of patients attending the Body CT department were collected from the hospital's computer information system from 1995 to 2000 and from handwritten logbooks for the months of September 1988 and 1998. Comparison was made with population trends within the hospital and local demographic data. There has been an average increase of 11% per annum in the number of examinations performed in the Body CT unit. The average age of patients examined increased from 52.7 years in 1988 to 58.9 years in 1998. The largest increase occurred in the over 75-year population (18% rise per annum). Hospital and local demographic population profiles changed little during the same period. We are performing increasing numbers of body CT examinations on increasingly elderly patients. This is probably due to an increased willingness to investigate and treat elderly patients, rather than changes in the local population. There is no evidence of a general discriminatory policy on the basis of age.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Preventive interventions for back and neck pain problems: what is the evidence?

STUDY DESIGN: A review of controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To determine which interventions are used to prevent back and neck pain problems as well as what the evidence is for their utility. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Given the difficulty in successfully treating long-term back and neck pain problems, there has been a call for preventive interventions. Little is known, however, about the value of preventive efforts for nonpatients, e.g., in the general population or workplace. METHODS: The literature was systematically searched to locate all investigations that were: 1) specifically designed as a preventive intervention; 2) randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials; and, 3) using subjects not seeking treatment. Outcome was evaluated on the key variables of reported pain, report of injury, dysfunction, time off work, health-care utilization, and cost. Conclusions were drawn using a grading system. RESULTS: Twenty-seven investigations meeting the criteria were found for educational efforts, lumbar supports, exercises, ergonomics, and risk factor modification. For back schools, only one of the nine randomized trials reported a significant effect, and there was strong evidence that back schools are not effective in prevention. Because the randomized trials concerning lumbar supports were consistently negative, there is strong evidence that they are not effective in prevention. Exercises, conversely, showed stable positive results in randomized controlled trials, giving consistent evidence of relatively moderate utility in prevention. Because no properly controlled trials were found for ergonomic interventions or risk factor modification, there was not good quality evidence available to draw a conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: The results concerning prevention for subjects not seeking medical care are sobering. Only exercises provided sufficient evidence to conclude that they are an effective preventive intervention. There is a dire lack of controlled trials examining broad-based multidimensional programs. The need for high quality outcome studies is underscored.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

A cognitive-behavioral group intervention as prevention for persistent neck and back pain in a non-patient population: a randomized controlled trial.

Given the demand for interventions that may prevent the development of persistent musculoskeletal pain problems, we investigated the effects of a cognitive-behavioral program in a group of non-patients with neck or back pain symptoms. Two hundred and fifty-three people selected from a population study were invited to participate. These people had experienced four or more episodes of relatively intense spinal pain during the past year but had not been out of work more than 30 days. Participants were randomly assigned to either a cognitive-behavioral group intervention or a treatment as usual comparison group. The experimental group received a standardized six-session program, provided by a trained therapist according to a manual. A significant overall analysis at the 1-year follow-up showed that the cognitive-behavioral group produced better results on 26 of the 33 outcome variables. Group comparisons indicated that the cognitive-behavioral group, relative to the comparison group, had significantly better results with regard to fear-avoidance beliefs, number of pain-free days, as well as the key variable of sick leave. Participation in the cognitive behavioral group reduced the risk for long-term sick leave during the follow-up by threefold. Thus, despite the strong natural recovery rate for back pain, the cognitive-behavioral intervention produced a significant preventive effect with regard to disability.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Behavioral treatment for chronic low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The treatment of chronic low back pain is not primarily focused on removing an underlying organic disease but at the reduction of disability through the modification of environmental contingencies and cognitive processes. Behavioral interventions are commonly used in the treatment of chronic (disabling) low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether behavioral therapy is more effective than reference treatments for chronic nonspecific low back pain and which type of behavioral treatment is most effective. METHODS: The authors searched the Medline and PsychLit databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to April 1999, and Embase up to September 1999. Also screened were references of identified randomized trials and relevant systematic reviews. Methodologic quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The magnitude of effect was assessed by computing a pooled effect size for each domain (i.e., behavioral outcomes, overall improvement, back pain-specific and generic functional status, return to work, and pain intensity) using the random effects model. RESULTS: Only six (25%) studies were high quality. There is strong evidence (level 1) that behavioral treatment has a moderate positive effect on pain intensity (pooled effect size 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25, 0.98), and small positive effects on generic functional status (pooled effect size 0.35; 95% CI: -0.04, 0.74) and behavioral outcomes (pooled effect size 0.40; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.70) of patients with chronic low back pain when compared with waiting-list controls or no treatment. There is moderate evidence (level 2) that a addition of behavioral component to a usual treatment program for chronic low backpain has no positive short-term effect on generic functional status (pooled effect size 0.31; 95% CI: -0.01, 0.64), pain intensity (pooled effect size 0.03; 95% CI:-0.30, 0.36), and behavioral outcomes (pooled effect size 0.19; 95% CI: -0.08, 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral treatment seems to be an effective treatment for patients with chronic low back pain,but it is still unknown what type of patients benefit most from what type of behavioral treatment.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed2001

Long-term, non-specific spinal pain: reliable and valid subgroups of patients.

The aim of this study was to identify reliable and valid subgroups of spinal pain patients, using data from the Swedish version of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI-S). A second aim was to test the generalisability of the three patient profiles described in earlier studies on the MPI ("adaptive coper", "dysfunctional" and "interpersonally distressed" patients). The study base consisted of two samples of individuals suffering from long-term, non-specific spinal pain and the results were validated across these samples. Cluster analysis was used to detect distinct groups of patients and the validity of these subgroups was evaluated on variables not used to generate the cluster solution. One subgroup was characterised by lower pain severity, lower interference with everyday activities, lower affective distress and higher life control than the other two subgroups. This patient profile was similar to the MPI adaptive coper patients. A second subgroup resembled the dysfunctional patient profile, thus displaying a worse adjustment to chronic pain than the AC patients. The third patient group reported significantly lower levels of social support from "significant others" than the other subgroups. This patient profile was similar to that of the interpersonally distressed patient group. Taken together, the results support the reliability, validity and generalisability of three subgroups of chronic pain patients derived from the MPI-S.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed2001

A cognitive-behavioral return-to-work program: effects on pain patients with a history of long-term versus short-term sick leave.

A cognitive-behavioral return-to-work focused program was evaluated in a randomized controlled design, and the effects were compared between two groups of women with musculoskeletal pain. One group of patients (n=36) had a history of long-term sick leave (>12 months) at the start of the program and the other (n=36) had a history of short-term sick leave (2-6 months). The outpatient treatment program, conducted by a psychologist, included 12 sessions with the primary aim to help the patients return-to-work. The treatment first included teaching of coping strategies such as applied relaxation, stress management, graded activity training and pacing. Thereafter the patients were taught how to manage difficulties at their return-to-work and how to generalize coping strategies to different risk factors at their work places. The control condition received treatment-as-usual. The results showed that the cognitive-behavioral return-to-work program was more effective than the treatment-as-usual control condition in reducing the number of days on sick leave for patients on short-term sick leave, but not for patients on long-term sick leave. The treatment program also helped the patients on short-term sick leave to increase their ability to control and decrease pain and to increase their general activity level compared to the control condition. These results underscore the need for an early return-to-work focused rehabilitation to prevent long-term sick leave and disability.

Absenteeism↗
PubMed2001

Occupational psychological factors increase the risk for back pain: a systematic review.

The purpose of this review was to summarize current knowledge concerning the role of psychological workplace variables in back pain. To this end the literature on psychological factors and back pain was systematically searched and analyzed. Psychological and medical databases and cross-referencing were used to locate 975 studies. To be included in this review, studies had to have a prospective design, include a psychological predictor variable, report on back pain, and be published in English. Twenty-one studies fulfilled the criteria for psychological workplace factors. The results showed a clear association between psychological variables and future back pain. There was strong evidence that job satisfaction, monotonous tasks, work relations, demands, stress, and perceived ability to work were related to future back pain problems. Further, moderate evidence was established for work pace, control, emotional effort at work, and the belief that work is dangerous. There was inconclusive evidence about work content. The attributable fraction indicated that substantial reductions in the number of cases of back pain could be achieved if the exposure to the psychological risk factor was eliminated. Although the methodological quality of the studies varied, they were deemed to provide "best evidence," and the consistency of the findings suggests that they are relatively robust. It is concluded that psychological work factors play a significant role in future back pain problems. However, there is still a lack of knowledge concerning the mechanisms by which these operate. These results suggest that a change in the way we view and deal with back pain is needed. Applying knowledge about psychological factors at work might enhance prevention as well as rehabilitation.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Can chronic disability be prevented? A randomized trial of a cognitive-behavior intervention and two forms of information for patients with spinal pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled design superimposed on treatment as usual was used to compare the effects of a cognitive-behavior intervention aimed at preventing chronicity with two different forms of information. OBJECTIVE: To develop a coping-oriented preventive intervention applicable in primary care, and to compare its impact with educational information. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Preventing long-term disability resulting from spinal pain has proved difficult. The information provided by health care professions and early interventions aimed at preventing long-term disability may be important, but little scientific evidence exists concerning their use. METHODS: A protocol for a six-session cognitive-behavior group intervention was developed on the basis of earlier research. The main focus was to prevent long-term disability by changing patients' behaviors and beliefs so they can cope better with their problems. Comparison groups received either a pamphlet shown earlier to have an effect, or a more extensive information package consisting of six installments. All the groups continued to receive treatment as usual in primary care. There were 243 patients with acute or subacute spinal pain who perceived that they were at risk for developing a chronic problem. These patients were randomized to the cognitive-behavioral intervention or one of the two information groups. Because the aim was to prevent long-term disability, the key outcome variables at the 1-year follow-up assessment were sick absenteeism and health care use. Other variables were pain, function, fear-avoidance beliefs, and cognitions. RESULTS: The comparison groups reported benefits. However, the risk for a long-term sick absence developing was lowered ninefold for the cognitive-behavior intervention group as compared with the risk for the information groups (relative risk, 9.3). Participants in the cognitive-behavior group also reported a significant decrease in perceived risk. In addition, the cognitive-behavior group demonstrated a significant decrease in physician and physical therapy use as compared with two groups receiving information, in which such use increased. All three groups tended to improve on the variables of pain, fear-avoidance, and cognitions. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that a cognitive-behavior group intervention can lower the risk of a long-term disability developing. These findings underscore the significance of early interventions that specifically aim to prevent chronic problems. This approach might be applied to primary care settings.

Absenteeism↗
PubMed2000

Behavioral treatment for chronic low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The treatment of chronic low back pain is not primarily focused on removing an underlying organic disease but at the reduction of disability through the modification of environmental contingencies and cognitive processes. Behavioral interventions are commonly used in the treatment of chronic (disabling) low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether behavioral therapy is more effective than reference treatments for chronic nonspecific low back pain and which type of behavioral treatment is most effective. METHODS: The authors searched the Medline and PsychLit databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to April 1999, and Embase up to September 1999. Also screened were references of identified randomized trials and relevant systematic reviews. Methodologic quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The magnitude of effect was assessed by computing a pooled effect size for each domain (i.e., behavioral outcomes, overall improvement, back pain-specific and generic functional status, return to work, and pain intensity) using the random effects model. RESULTS: Only six (25%) studies were high quality. There is strong evidence (level 1) that behavioral treatment has a moderate positive effect on pain intensity (pooled effect size 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0. 25, 0.98), and small positive effects on generic functional status (pooled effect size 0.35; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.74) and behavioral outcomes (pooled effect size 0.40; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.70) of patients with chronic low back pain when compared with waiting-list controls or no treatment. There is moderate evidence (level 2) that a addition of behavioral component to a usual treatment program for chronic low backpain has no positive short-term effect on generic functional status (pooled effect size 0.31; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.64), pain intensity (pooled effect size 0.03; 95% CI: 0.30,0.36), and behavioral outcomes (pooled effect size 0.19; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral treatment seems to be an effective treatment for patients with chronic low back pain,but it is still unknown what type of patients benefit most from what type of behavioral treatment.

Analgesics↗
PubMed2000

A review of psychological risk factors in back and neck pain.

STUDY DESIGN: The literature on psychological factors in neck and back pain was systematically searched and reviewed. OBJECTIVES: To summarize current knowledge concerning the role of psychological variables in the etiology and development of neck and back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recent conceptions of spinal pain, especially chronic back pain, have highlighted the role of psychological factors. Numerous studies subsequently have examined the effects of various psychological factors in neck and back pain. There is a need to review this material to ascertain what conclusions may be drawn. METHODS: Medical and psychological databases and cross-referencing were used to locate 913 potentially relevant articles. A table of 37 studies was constructed, consisting only of studies with prospective designs to ensure quality. Each study was reviewed for the population studied, the psychological predictor variables, and the outcome. RESULTS: The available literature indicated a clear link between psychological variables and neck and back pain. The prospective studies indicated that psychological variables were related to the onset of pain, and to acute, subacute, and chronic pain. Stress, distress, or anxiety as well as mood and emotions, cognitive functioning, and pain behavior all were found to be significant factors. Personality factors produced mixed results. Although the level of evidence was low, abuse also was found to be a potentially significant factor. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological factors play a significant role not only in chronic pain, but also in the etiology of acute pain, particularly in the transition to chronic problems. Specific types of psychological variables emerge and may be important in distinct developmental time frames, also implying that assessment and intervention need to reflect these variables. Still, psychological factors account for only a portion of the variance, thereby highlighting the multidimensional view. Because the methodologic quality of the studies varied considerably, future research should focus on improving quality and addressing new questions such as the mechanism, the developmental time factor, and the relevance that these risk factors have for intervention.

Anxiety↗
PubMed2000

Behavioural treatment for chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of chronic low back pain is not primarily focused on removing an underlying organic pathology, but at the reduction of disability through the modification of environmental contingencies and cognitive processes. Behavioural interventions are commonly used in the treatment of chronic (disabling) low back pain. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to determine if behavioural therapy is more effective than reference treatments for chronic non-specific low back pain, and which type of behavioural treatment is most effective. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Medline, PsycLit databases, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to April 1999, Embase up to September 1999. We also screened references of identified randomised trials and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised trials on any type of behavioural treatment for non-specific chronic low back pain were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Methodological quality assessment and data extraction was done by two reviewers independently. The magnitude of effect was assessed by computing a pooled effect size for each domain (i.e., behavioural outcomes, overall improvement, back pain specific and generic functional status, return to work, and pain intensity) using the random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Only 6 studies (25%) were high quality. There is strong evidence (level 1) that behavioural treatment has a moderate positive effect on pain intensity (pooled effect size 0.62; 95% CI 0.25, 0.98), and small positive effects on generic functional status (pooled effect size 0.35; 95% CI -0.04, 0.74) and behavioural outcomes (pooled effect size 0.40; 95% CI 0.10, 0.70) of chronic low back pain patients when compared to waiting list controls or no treatment. There is moderate evidence (level 2) that an additional behavioural component to a usual treatment program for chronic low back pain has no positive short-term effect on generic functional status (pooled effect size 0.31; 95% CI - 0.01, 0.64), pain intensity (pooled effect size 0.03; 95% CI - 0.30, 0. 36) and behavioural outcomes (pooled effect size 0.19; 95% CI - 0.08, 0.45). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural treatment seems to be an effective treatment for chronic low back pain patients, but it is still unknown what type of patients benefit most from what type of behavioural treatment.

Behavior Therapy↗
PubMed2000

Do epidemiological results replicate? The prevalence and health-economic consequences of neck and back pain in the general population.

Current estimates of the prevalence and consequences of neck and back pain vary greatly between studies. It is not known whether this variance is due to differences in methodology, or if it depends on the dynamics of the problem over time. The aim of this study was consequently an attempt to replicate and extend the findings of a previous epidemiological study using the same methodology on a new population. A survey of 3000 35-45 year olds, selected at randon, was conducted to determine the prevalence, site, frequency and intensity of the pain as well as any work loss or health-care utilization. The response rate was 69% and an analysis of non-responders showed that they were very similar to responders, but had a slightly lower prevalence. The results replicated the original study: 73% reported back pain during the past year and the consequences included considerable suffering and functional impairment. Moreover, 17% of those reporting pain had utilized sick leave during the past year for the problem, while an additional 14% had been off work but had not used sick leave. Sufferers averaged 3.5 health-care visits during the past year. However, the consumption of resources was highly skewed and about 6% of the sufferers accounted for over 50% of the costs. It was concluded that when the same selection criteria and assessment techniques are employed, the results found are quite similar. This implies that much of the huge variation in reported prevalence rates and consequences of back pain may be due to methodological differences. This underscores the need for standardized methods.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Biopsychosocial screening questionnaire for patients with low back pain: preliminary report of utility in physiotherapy practice in Northern Ireland.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the potential utility of a new biopsychosocial screening questionnaire (Acute Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire) by exploring the relation between it and several physical risk factors and posttreatment outcomes so as to establish a cutoff point for the local population. The relation between the screening questionnaire and valid and reliable outcome measures of pain and functional disability was also explored. DESIGN: Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies were conducted on patients referred for physiotherapy for low back pain to a large Healthcare Trust in Northern Ireland. Before initial assessment, patients completed the screening questionnaire and outcome measures, were questioned about known physical risk factors, and then received physiotherapy. At final discharge, the outcome variables--the "number of treatments" and patient's current work status ("return to work [yes/no]")--were recorded, and patients recompleted the outcome measures. PATIENTS: One hundred eighteen patients gave written informed consent to participate in this study. RESULTS: Significant associations were detected between questionnaire scores and pretreatment "leisure time exercise," "analgesic medication use," and "subjective anesthesia"; posttreatment "return to work"; and "number of physiotherapy treatments" as well as pain and functional disability measures. A cutoff "at-risk" score of 112 was calculated, which correctly classified 74% of patients who received more than six treatments and 80% of patients who failed to return to work at the end of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study provide preliminary evidence of the utility of this biopsychosocial screening questionnaire for future use in clinical intervention studies in the Northern Ireland National Health Service. Further comparative investigations in other health care settings are warranted.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1998

A population-based study of spinal pain among 35-45-year-old individuals. Prevalence, sick leave, and health care use.

STUDY DESIGN: A questionnaire was mailed to 3000 randomly selected 35-45-year-old individuals in three communities in central Sweden. OBJECTIVES: To study the 1-year prevalence of spinal pain and its ramifications in the form of pain, function, sick leave, and health care use. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous researchers have used a variety of definitions and populations, but primarily have investigated the occurrence of pain. Comprehensive data are needed concerning health care use, the degree of the pain problem, functional disturbances, and sick leave. METHOD: Participants in the study completed a questionnaire regarding spinal pain during the past year including the degree of their experienced pain, functional impairment, lost work days, and health care use. RESULTS: A total of 2305 people (78.5%) responded to the questionnaire. Nonrespondents had similar characteristics but a slightly lower 1-year prevalence rate than did respondents. For respondents, the prevalence of spinal pain during the past year was 66.3%, with women having a slightly higher prevalence than men. Approximately 25% of the respondents indicated that they had a substantial problem based on ratings of pain, functional impairment, and sick leave. Work absenteeism reported to the Public Social Insurance Office involved 19% of those with pain, but an additional 15% indicated unreported absenteeism. On average, those with pain visited health care providers three times during the past year, but a small number of those who experienced pain consumed large amounts of health care and illness benefits. An important gender difference was shown, such that when pain was at its worst, men took sick leave, whereas women sought health care. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these data indicate that spinal pain is common among 35-45-year-old men and-women, and that it is related to marked problems for approximately one fourth of those who experience pain. Gender differences exist in the pattern of sick leave and health care use, and a small proportion of those with pain consume very large amounts of the resources. Consequently, there is a need for early, effective, preventive treatments.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Can we screen for problematic back pain? A screening questionnaire for predicting outcome in acute and subacute back pain.

OBJECTIVES: Because musculoskeletal pain is the second most frequent reason for seeking health care, the aims of this study were to determine the value of psychosocial variables in evaluating risk for developing chronic back pain problems and to develop a screening methodology to identify patients likely to have a poor prognosis. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study was conducted on consecutive patients with acute or subacute back pain, in which patients completed a screening questionnaire and were then followed up for 6 months to determine outcome. The primary outcome variable was accumulated sick leave. METHODS: One hundred forty-two consecutive patients were asked to complete a questionnaire designed for this study. This questionnaire contained 24 items concerning psychosocial aspects of the problem. Six months later, patients were contacted to complete outcome questions about accumulated sick leave. RESULTS: A total of 97% of the patients completed both questionnaires. Although patients, on average, improved greatly, 18% had 1-30 days and 20% had fewer than 30 days of sick leave during the follow-up period. Five variables were found to be the strongest predictors of sick leave outcome (fear-avoidance work beliefs, perceived improvement, problems with work function, stress, and previous sick leave), correctly classifying 73% of the patients as opposed to a chance rate of 33%. A total score was evaluated as a means of judging risk and found to be strongly related to outcome. CONCLUSION: Potent psychosocial risk factors associated with future sick absenteeism were identified. Because the total score was related to outcome, the instrument may have use in screening patients with acute or subacute spinal pain in clinical situations.

Acute Disease↗