PubMed · 11040645
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
K Sitzman. 2000. Back issues.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004045-200002000-00015
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
PURPOSE: The present aim was an overview of factors associated with return to work following vocational rehabilitation for problems in the neck, back, and shoulders. METHOD: Studies were identified through a systematic keyword search in databases. For inclusion, return to work had to be in focus and studies to have been published between 1980 and 2000. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: A great number of demographic, psychological, social, medical, rehabilitation-related, workplace-related and benefit-system-related factors are associated with return to work. The different types of risk factor are associated in many ways. People with greater chances of job return after vocational rehabilitation are younger, native, highly educated, have a steady job and high income, are married and have stable social networks, are self-confident, happy with life, not depressed, have low level of disease severity and no pain, high work seniority, long working history and an employer that cares and wishes them back to the work place. Unfortunately, people with the above profile are seldom found among the long-term sick.
STUDY DESIGN: A control group-designed 1-year follow-up study involving 9 to 11-year-old schoolchildren who followed back education. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of a back education program, consisting of six sessions of 1 hour each, in elementary school. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In surveys among children and teenagers during the past few years, as many as half of all children in a community report a history of low back pain. Although several authors advocate the implementation of back education in elementary school, no guidelines exist and little is known about the efficacy of such a program. METHODS: A total of 198 children (subjected to back education) and 165 controls performed a practical test, evaluating the use of back care principles while sitting, taking off shoes, picking up a pen, and handling a load and a book bag. Post-tests were performed within 1 week after the intervention, after 3 months, and after 1 year. The week prevalence of back and neck pain was evaluated at these test moments in extended samples of intervention children (n = 347) and controls (n = 349). To evaluate habit changes, a limited group of intervention pupils (n = 38) and controls (n = 31) was additionally evaluated in a candid camera observation at the last post-test. RESULTS: At all post-tests intervention pupils scored significantly higher (P < 0.001) than controls for all practical test items. Candid camera evaluation scores were higher in the intervention group sample compared with the control group sample for four of the eight evaluated items. Following back education significantly decreased the week prevalence of back and neck pain. CONCLUSIONS: Back education in elementary schoolchildren is efficacious up to 1 year. The role of early back education in preventing back pain at the adult age merits further attention.
The aim of this research was to determine prognostic indicators of work disability in occupational back pain as reported in the literature, by systematically searching the research literature, assessing the methodological quality of the research, and synthesizing the findings into a concise summary. An article was considered eligible for review if research participants had an injury of the back, the article was based on original research, published in English, and involved a cohort with back pain less than 6 months post injury with at least one follow up assessment. Each article was independently reviewed by two "blinded" reviewers using 19 appraisal criteria for methodological quality of prognostic studies. Nineteen studies met the methodological standard to be included. Time since onset, demographic factors, functional disability, psychological distress, pain reports, previous episodes, and work environment were identified as important prognostic factors. Most studies compartmentalized the factors they considered. What is needed is a comprehensive multivariate biopsychosocial job-related model of work disability.