The Effects of Workplace Interventions on Low Back Pain in Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Russo F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8657220 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The Effects of Workplace Interventions on Low Back Pain in Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Russo Fabrizio F Papalia Giuseppe Francesco GF Vadalà Gianluca G Fontana Luca L Iavicoli Sergio S Papalia Rocco R Denaro Vincenzo V
International journal of environmental research and public health 20211130 23
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyze the effects of workplace interventions (WI) on clinical outcomes related to low back pain (LBP) in a worker population, and to assess socio-economic parameters as participants on sick leave, days of sick leave, and return to work following WI. A systematic literature search was performed to select randomized clinical trials that investigated the effectiveness of WI on return to work, sick leave, and working capacity of workers affected by ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of psychological interventions for chronic low back pain.DesignSystematic review with network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and CINAHL from database inception to 31 January 2021.Eligibility criteria for study selectionRandomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions with any comparison intervention in adults with chronic, non-specific low back pain. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and confidence in the evidence. Primary outcomes were physical function and pain intensity. A random effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach was performed at post-intervention (from the end of treatment to <2 months post-intervention); and at short term (≥2 to <6 months post-intervention), mid-term (≥6 to <12 months post-intervention), and long term follow-up (≥12 months post-intervention). Physiotherapy care was the reference comparison intervention. The design-by-treatment interaction model was used to assess global inconsistency and the Bucher method was used to assess local inconsistency.Results97 randomised controlled trials involving 13 136 participants and 17 treatment nodes were included. Inconsistency was detected at short term and mid-term follow-up for physical function, and short term follow-up for pain intensity, and were resolved through sensitivity analyses. For physical function, cognitive behavioural therapy (standardised mean difference 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.44), and pain education (0.62, 0.08 to 1.17), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important improvements at post-intervention (moderate quality evidence). The most sustainable effects of treatment for improving physical function were reported with pain education delivered with physiotherapy care, at least until mid-term follow-up (0.63, 0.25 to 1.00; low quality evidence). No studies investigated the long term effectiveness of pain education delivered with physiotherapy care. For pain intensity, behavioural therapy (1.08, 0.22 to 1.94), cognitive behavioural therapy (0.92, 0.43 to 1.42), and pain education (0.91, 0.37 to 1.45), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important effects at post-intervention (low to moderate quality evidence). Only behavioural therapy delivered with physiotherapy care maintained clinically important effects on reducing pain intensity until mid-term follow-up (1.01, 0.41 to 1.60; high quality evidence).ConclusionsFor people with chronic, non-specific low back pain, psychological interventions are most effective when delivered in conjunction with physiotherapy care (mainly structured exercise). Pain education programmes (low to moderate quality evidence) and behavioural therapy (low to high quality evidence) result in the most sustainable effects of treatment; however, uncertainty remains as to their long term effectiveness. Although inconsistency was detected, potential sources were identified and resolved.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019138074.
| S-EPMC8965745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal condition that has a great socioeconomic impact on health systems. Instead of focusing on mechanical causes and direct workload in the development of CNSLBP, genetics, psychosocial environment, lifestyle and quality of life are coming to the forefront in its approach. The main objective was to analyze whether interventions aimed at modifying lifestyle can be effective in improving pain intensity and functional disability in CNSLBP. A search in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and SportDiscus databases was performed. Both a univariate and a multivariate network meta-analysis were applied with the difference pre/post-treatment. A total of 20 studies were included for qualitative analysis, of which 16 were randomized clinical trials with a moderate-high methodological quality and were part of the quantitative analysis. The interventions that had the greatest effect in reducing pain intensity were cognitive therapy combined with functional exercise programs, lumbar stabilization exercise and resistance exercise; meanwhile, for functional disability, they were functional exercise programs, aerobic exercise and standard care. In conclusion, a multimodal intervention aimed at changing one's lifestyle that encompasses cognitive, behavioral, and physical aspects seems to be highly effective in improving pain intensity and functional disability caused by CNSLBP; however, it is not yet known if these improvements are maintained in the long term.
| S-EPMC10931043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow-back pain (LBP) may be directly or indirectly related to impairments from the hip joint.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of hip interventions on pain and disability in patients with LBP in the short-, medium-, and long-term.MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, PEDro, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases were searched in November 2022. Randomized controlled trials involving hip-targeted interventions compared to specific low back interventions in patients with LBP were selected. The outcomes were pain intensity and disability. The quality of the studies was assessed with the risk of bias tool. GRADE was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models.ResultsA total of 2581 studies were screened. Eight were included in the meta-analysis involving 508 patients with LBP. The results provided very low certainty that both hip strengthening and hip stretching improved pain (MD = -0.66; 95% CI -0.86, -0.48; I2:0%) (MD = -0.55; 95% CI -1.02, -0.08) and disability (SMD = -0.81; 95% CI -1.53, -0.10; I2: 80%) (SMD = -1.03; 95% CI -1.82, -0.25) in the short-term, respectively. No benefits were found in the medium- or long-term. The risk of bias, heterogeneity, and imprecision of the results downgraded the level of evidence.ConclusionsVery low certainty evidence suggest a positive effect of hip strengthening in isolation or combined with specific low back exercise and hip stretching combined with specific low back exercise for decreasing pain intensity and disability in the short-term, in patients with LBP.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO CRD42022303173.
| S-EPMC10120300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveThe current treatments of primary musculoskeletal low back pain (LBP) have a low to moderate efficacy, which might be improved by looking at the contribution of placebo effects. However, the size of true placebo effects in LBP is unknown. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were executed of randomized controlled trials investigating placebo effects in LBP.Databases and data treatmentThe study protocol was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews Prospero (CRD42019148745). A literature search (in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO) up to 2021 February 16th yielded 2,423 studies. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility and risk of bias.ResultsEighteen studies were eligible for the systematic review and 5 for the meta-analysis. Fourteen of the 18 studies were clinical treatment studies, and 4 were experimental studies specifically assessing placebo effects. The clinical treatment studies provided varying evidence for placebo effects in chronic LBP but insufficient evidence for acute and subacute LBP. Most experimental studies investigating chronic LBP revealed significant placebo effects. The meta-analysis of 5 treatment studies investigating chronic LBP depicted a significant moderate effect size of placebo for pain intensity (SMD = 0.57) and disability (SMD = 0.52).ConclusionsThis review shows a significant contribution of placebo effects to chronic LBP symptom relief in clinical and experimental conditions. The meta-analysis revealed that placebo effects can influence chronic LBP intensity and disability. However, additional studies are required for more supporting evidence and evidence for placebo effects in acute or subacute LBP.SignificanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence of true placebo effects in low back pain (LBP). It shows a significant contribution of placebo effects to chronic LBP symptom relief. The results highlight the importance of patient- and context-related factors in fostering treatment effects in this patient group. New studies could provide insight into the potential value of actively making use of placebo effects in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC8518410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPsychological factors such as fear avoidance beliefs, depression, anxiety, catastrophic thinking and familial and social stress, have been associated with high disability levels in people with chronic low back pain (LBP). Guidelines endorse the integration of psychological interventions in the management of chronic LBP. However, uncertainty surrounds the comparative effectiveness of different psychological approaches. Network meta-analysis (NMA) allows comparison and ranking of numerous competing interventions for a given outcome of interest. Therefore, we will perform a systematic review with a NMA to determine which type of psychological intervention is most effective for adults with chronic non-specific LBP.Methods and analysisWe will search electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS and CINAHL) from inception until 22 August 2019 for randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions to any comparison interventions in adults with chronic non-specific LBP. There will be no restriction on language. The primary outcomes will include physical function and pain intensity, and secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life, fear avoidance, intervention compliance and safety. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) tool and confidence in the evidence will be assessed using the Confidence in NMA (CINeMA) framework. We will conduct a random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach to estimate relative effects for all comparisons between treatments and rank treatments according to the mean rank and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. All analyses will be performed in Stata.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42019138074.
| S-EPMC7500308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesLow back pain (LBP) has a major impact on health workers, and its prevalence and risk factors among them in Saudi Arabia have been investigated previously. However, the results have never been comprehensively reviewed. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to identify the prevalence and risk factors of LBP among health workers in Saudi Arabia.MethodsMEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and Saudi peer-reviewed journals were searched for relevant literature. After quality assessment of the eligible articles, 18 studies targeting seven occupational categories, with a total number of 5345 health workers, were analyzed.ResultsPooled prevalence rates of 40.8% (n = 7 studies), 65.0% (n = 13 studies), and 81.4% (n = 2 studies) were obtained for week, year, and career, respectively, across all professional groups. Nurses and physical therapists were more susceptible to LBP, in that order, than the other categories considering week and career periods. Age, body mass index, and female gender were the most commonly reported individual risk factors. Occupational risk factors mainly included work-related activities requiring back bending and twisting, lifting and pulling objects, and manual patient-handling.ConclusionsThe results of this review indicate that LBP is highly prevalent among health workers in Saudi Arabia when compared with international rates. Proper prophylactic measures are necessary to reduce LBP and minimize its consequences. Further high-quality research is needed in different Saudi regions to achieve a broader understanding of LBP prevalence and causes.
| S-EPMC7382437 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Low back pain (LBP) is a common reason people visit Emergency Departments (ED). However, the care provided is often not aligned with guideline recommendations. Despite increasing research aiming to promote guideline-based care in EDs, interventions to best implement recommendations are unknown. This study aimed to identify ED LBP implementation interventions that have been trialed and evaluate their effects on ED-relevant outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis, including studies that evaluated interventions to improve the quality of care provided to adults presenting to ED with LBP. Databases searched until May 2023 were Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE (via OVID), and PEDro. Interventions were categorized according to whether they had a patient, clinician, health service, or multiple-level focus. Where possible, meta-analysis was undertaken. Certainty around the results was assessed using the GRADE criteria. Twenty-eight studies were included. Interventions were categorized as patient (n = 2), clinician (n = 8), health service (n = 12), or multiple-level (n = 6) targeted. Overall, interventions successfully reduced the likelihood of receiving an opioid in ED (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.55-0.75). However, no significant effect on lumbar imaging was demonstrated (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.64-1.12). Subgroup analyses showed that studies reporting high baseline imaging rates ≥ 36% and those that included systems-based changes significantly reduced imaging (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.39-0.93; and OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.45-0.94, respectively). A small reduction in ED length of stay was observed in the group exposed to the LBP interventions (mean difference - 0.38 h; 95% CI - 0.58 to - 0.17). Overall, certainty of evidence was deemed low to very low. Interventions were mostly single-system focused with a preference for education-based implementation strategies targeting patients or clinicians. The interventions reduced the use of opioid medication for LBP in ED, but the effects on lumbar imaging rates were uncertain. Further high-quality research is needed to improve LBP care in this setting.
| S-EPMC11466992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a common cause of disability and is ranked as the most burdensome health condition globally. Self-management, including components on increased knowledge, monitoring of symptoms, and physical activity, are consistently recommended in clinical guidelines as cost-effective strategies for LBP management and there is increasing interest in the potential role of digital health.ObjectiveThe study aimed to synthesize and critically appraise published evidence concerning the use of interactive digital interventions to support self-management of LBP. The following specific questions were examined: (1) What are the key components of digital self-management interventions for LBP, including theoretical underpinnings? (2) What outcome measures have been used in randomized trials of digital self-management interventions in LBP and what effect, if any, did the intervention have on these? and (3) What specific characteristics or components, if any, of interventions appear to be associated with beneficial outcomes?MethodsBibliographic databases searched from 2000 to March 2016 included Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, DoPHER and TRoPHI, Social Science Citation Index, and Science Citation Index. Reference and citation searching was also undertaken. Search strategy combined the following concepts: (1) back pain, (2) digital intervention, and (3) self-management. Only randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols or completed RCTs involving adults with LBP published in peer-reviewed journals were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias tool. An independent third reviewer adjudicated on disagreements. Data were synthesized narratively.ResultsOf the total 7014 references identified, 11 were included, describing 9 studies: 6 completed RCTs and 3 protocols for future RCTs. The completed RCTs included a total of 2706 participants (range of 114-1343 participants per study) and varied considerably in the nature and delivery of the interventions, the duration/definition of LBP, the outcomes measured, and the effectiveness of the interventions. Participants were generally white, middle aged, and in 5 of 6 RCT reports, the majority were female and most reported educational level as time at college or higher. Only one study reported between-group differences in favor of the digital intervention. There was considerable variation in the extent of reporting the characteristics, components, and theories underpinning each intervention. None of the studies showed evidence of harm.ConclusionsThe literature is extremely heterogeneous, making it difficult to understand what might work best, for whom, and in what circumstances. Participants were predominantly female, white, well educated, and middle aged, and thus the wider applicability of digital self-management interventions remains uncertain. No information on cost-effectiveness was reported. The evidence base for interactive digital interventions to support patient self-management of LBP remains weak.
| S-EPMC5466697 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow back pain is one of the main causes of disability worldwide. Individuals with chronic conditions have been widely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, mobile health (mHealth) has become popular, mostly due to the widespread use of smartphones. Despite the considerable number of apps for low back pain available in app stores, the effectiveness of these technologies is not established, and there is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of the isolated use of mobile apps in the self-management of low back pain.ObjectiveWe summarized the evidence on the effectiveness of mHealth interventions on pain and disability for individuals with chronic low back pain.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing mHealth to usual care or no intervention. The search terms used were related to low back pain and mHealth. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability, and the secondary outcome was quality of life. Searches were carried out in the following databases, without date or language restriction: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the Cochrane Library, and OpenGrey, in addition to article references. The risk of bias was analyzed using the PEDro scale. Data were summarized descriptively and through meta-analysis (pain intensity and disability). In the meta-analysis, eligible studies were combined while considering clinical and methodological homogeneity. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) criteria.ResultsA total of 5 randomized controlled trials were included, totaling 894 participants (447 allocated to the mHealth group and 445 to the usual care group), and they had similar methodological structure and interventions. Follow-up ranged from 6 weeks to 12 months. The studies did not demonstrate significant differences for pain intensity (mean difference -0.86, 95% CI -2.29 to 0.58; P=.15) and disability (standardized mean difference -0.24, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.20; P=.14) when comparing mHealth and usual care. All studies showed biases, with emphasis on nonconcealed allocation and nonblinding of the outcome evaluator. The certainty of evidence was rated as low for the analyzed outcomes.ConclusionsmHealth alone was no more effective than usual care or no treatment in improving pain intensity and disability in individuals with low back pain. Due to the biases found and the low certainty of evidence, the evidence remains inconclusive, and future quality clinical trials are needed.
| S-EPMC10662677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ethnopharmacological relevanceTibetan traditional medicine CheeZheng Pain-Relieving Plaster (CZPRP) is frequently used as an over-the-counter external analgesic for musculoskeletal pain; however, its evidence for low back pain (LBP) has not been evaluated.Aim of the studyThis study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of CZPRP for both acute, subacute and chronic LBP through a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.Materials and methodsPubMed, CENTRAL, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang databases were searched through April 20, 2020 for randomized controlled trials of CZPRP for LBP. Eligible comparators were placebo, active treatment, or usual care. Clinical outcomes included pain severity, lower back function score, pain-free rate, and adverse events (AEs). Qualitative evaluations were conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Quantitative analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.ResultsThis study includes 1674 LBP patients from nine clinical studies. Pooled analyses among subjects with acute LBP show 1) significant pain reductions (mean difference -0.84, 95% confidence interval[CI] -1.31, -0.37) in CZPRP plus diclofenac versus diclofenac, 2) significant improvements in lower back function (standard mean difference -1.50, 95% CI -2.16, -0.85) in CZPRP versus diclofenac, and 3) a higher pain-free rate in CZPRP alone (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.16, 1.89; I2 = 61%) or CZPRP plus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (risk ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.14, 2.40; I2 = 0%) versus NSAIDs. However, in a heterogeneous population with mixed LBP subtypes, there was no significant difference in pain outcomes between CZPRP and diclofenac. Additionally, CZPRP use did not increase AEs compared with no CZPRP (p = 0.40). All nine studies are associated with moderate to high risk of bias.ConclusionsThe use of CZPRP is associated with improved acute LBP outcomes compared to diclofenac. However, due to the moderate to high risk of bias of the studies, future rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effects of CZPRP for acute and chronic LBP.
| S-EPMC9254726 | biostudies-literature