Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention for the prevention of low back pain recurrence in Australia (WalkBack): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence of low back pain is common and a substantial contributor to the disease and economic burden of low back pain. Exercise is recommended to prevent recurrence, but the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an accessible and low-cost intervention, such as walking, is yet to be established. We aimed to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention to prevent the recurrence of low back pain. METHODS: WalkBack was a two-armed, randomised controlled trial, which recruited adults (aged 18 years or older) from across Australia who had recently recovered from an episode of non-specific low back pain that was not attributed to a specific diagnosis, and which lasted for at least 24 h. Participants were randomly assigned to an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention facilitated by six sessions with a physiotherapist across 6 months or to a no treatment control group (1:1). The randomisation schedule comprised randomly permuted blocks of 4, 6, and 8 and was stratified by history of more than two previous episodes of low back pain and referral method. Physiotherapists and participants were not masked to allocation. Participants were followed for a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of 36 months, depending on the date of enrolment. The primary outcome was days to the first recurrence of an activity-limiting episode of low back pain, collected in the intention-to-treat population via monthly self-report. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the societal perspective and expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ACTRN12619001134112). FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2019, and June 10, 2022, 3206 potential participants were screened for eligibility, 2505 (78%) were excluded, and 701 were randomly assigned (351 to the intervention group and 350 to the no treatment control group). Most participants were female (565 [81%] of 701) and the mean age of participants was 54 years (SD 12). The intervention was effective in preventing an episode of activity-limiting low back pain (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·60-0·85], p=0·0002). The median days to a recurrence was 208 days (95% CI 149-295) in the intervention group and 112 days (89-140) in the control group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was AU$7802, giving a 94% probability that the intervention was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $28 000. Although the total number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event over 12 months was similar between the intervention and control groups (183 [52%] of 351 and 190 [54%] of 350, respectively, p=0·60), there was a greater number of adverse events related to the lower extremities in the intervention group than in the control group (100 in the intervention group and 54 in the control group). INTERPRETATION: An individualised, progressive walking and education intervention significantly reduced low back pain recurrence. This accessible, scalable, and safe intervention could affect how low back pain is managed. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia.

Exercises for the prevention of non-specific low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effects of exercise alone or exercise plus education compared with inactive control or education alone to prevent non-specific LBP.

Effectiveness of Back care education Programme among school children: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of Randomised controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: With the increasing incidence of back pain among children and its untold implications to their future, back education tailored in an effective way would be indicated. However literature appears unsettled. This study aims to review available literature to determine the effect of school-based back education in preventing and managing low back pain in school children. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials carried out on elementary and secondary school children of ages 6 to 18 years and published in English language were included. Back education taught in hospitals or other settings were excluded. Primary outcome was back pain prevalence and secondary outcomes were constituted from the study characteristics of selected studies which includes: back behavior, knowledge, postural habits, physical activity, fear-avoidance beliefs, back pack carriage, pain intensity, skills and self efficacy. Databases searched were PEDro, HINARI, PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. Available stiudies from 2000 to March 2022 were retrieved. Quality of studies were assessed using the PEDro scale. Obtained studies were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: A total 8420 studies were retrieved and 8 studies (with 1239 participants) were included in this review. Four studies each assessed back knowledge and back behavior, and two assessed back pain prevalence. There were improvements in back knowledge and back behaviour, but effectiveness of back care education on back pain prevalence was not conclusive. Forms of education used involved the indirect method of conditioning the environment and the direct method which made use of theory, practical lessons and educational books and materials. CONCLUSION: Back care education programmes in schools are effective in improving back care knowledge, behavior and reduction in low back pain frequency. Reduction in back pain prevalence is not conclusive. Back care education could be incorporated as part of schools' education programmes. Limitations include exclusion of non English language studies and inconsistent outcome measures. FUNDING SOURCE: None. REGISTRATION: This review protocol was registered under the International platform of Registered systematic review and meta-analysis protocol (INPLASY) with the registration number; INPLASY202310044 and DOI number; https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2023.1.0044.

Implementation of an integrated primary care prevention and management program for chronic low back pain (LBP): patient-reported outcomes and predictors of pain interference after six months.

BACKGROUND: Integrated primary care programs for patients living with chronic pain which are accessible, interdisciplinary, and patient-centered are needed for preventing chronicity and improving outcomes. Evaluation of the implementation and impact of such programs supports further development of primary care chronic pain management. This study examined patient-reported outcomes among individuals with low back pain (LBP) receiving care in a novel interdisciplinary primary care program. METHODS: Patients were referred by primary care physicians in four regions of Quebec, Canada, and eligible patients received an evidence-based interdisciplinary pain management program over a six-month period. Patients were screened for risk of chronicity. Patient-reported outcome measures of pain interference and intensity, physical function, depression, and anxiety were evaluated at regular intervals over the six-month follow-up. A multilevel regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between patient characteristics at baseline, including risk of chronicity, and change in pain outcomes. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-four individuals (mean age 55.4y, 63% female) completed the program. The majority (≥ 60%) experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in pain intensity and interference at six months. Patients with moderate (71%) or high risk (81%) of chronicity showed greater improvement in pain interference than those with low risk (51%). Significant predictors of improvement in pain interference included a higher risk of chronicity, younger age, female sex, and lower baseline disability. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of this novel LBP program will inform wider implementation considerations by identifying key components for further effectiveness, sustainability, and scale-up of the program.

MyBack - effectiveness and implementation of a behavior change informed exercise programme to prevent low back pain recurrences: a hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common health condition and the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Most LBP episodes have a favourable prognosis, but recurrences within a year are common. Despite the individual and societal impact related to LBP recurrences, there is limited evidence on effective strategies for secondary prevention of LBP and successful implementation of intervention programmes in a real-world context. The aim of this study is to analyse the effectiveness of a tailored exercise and behavioural change programme (MyBack programme) in the secondary prevention of LBP; and evaluate acceptability, feasibility and determinants of implementation by the different stakeholders, as well as the implementation strategy of the MyBack programme in real context. METHODS: This protocol describes a hybrid type I, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of MyBack programme in the context of primary health care. The Behaviour Change Wheel framework and FITT-VP principles will inform the development of the behaviour change and exercise component of MyBack programme, respectively. Patients who have recently recovered from an episode of non-specific LBP will be randomly assigned to MyBack and usual care group or usual care group. The primary outcome will be the risk of LBP recurrence. The secondary outcomes will include disability, pain intensity, musculoskeletal health, and health-related quality of life. Participants will be followed monthly for 1 year. Costs data related to health care use and the MyBack programme will be also collected. Implementation outcomes will be assessed in parallel with the effectiveness study using qualitative methods (focus groups with participants and health providers) and quantitative data (study enrolment and participation data; participants adherence). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the effectiveness and implementation of a tailored exercise and behaviour change programme for prevention of LBP recurrences. Despite challenges related to hybrid design, it is expected that data on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation of the MyBack programme may contribute to improve health care in patients at risk of LBP recurrences, contributing to direct and indirect costs reduction for patients and the health system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05841732.

Implementation of back to living well, a community-based program for the tertiary prevention of low back pain: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The current literature supports the effectiveness of exercise, education, and self-management interventions for the long-term management of persistent low back pain. However, there is significant uncertainty about the implementation of interventions related to barriers, facilitators, and patient's preferences. This study will evaluate the Back to Living Well program implementation from a participant and organizational perspective. More specifically we address the following objectives: 1) identify program barriers and facilitators from participants' perspectives, 2) identify factors related to program, personal and contextual factors that contribute to negative and positive outcomes, and outcome trajectories, 3) identify factors influencing participants' selection of an in-person or e-health program, and 4) evaluate program specific barriers and facilitators from the organization and care delivery perspectives. METHODS: This study will utilize a mixed-method convergent design including a longitudinal cohort strand and a longitudinal qualitative interview strand. The RE-AIM framework will be used to assess program implementation. Participants (n = 90, 1:1: in person or virtual) who choose to register in the program as well as staff (n = 10 to 15) involved in the delivery of the program will be invited to participate. Participants will participate in a 12-week physical activity, education, and self-management program. Implementation outcomes will be measured at 3-, 6-, 12-months, and six months after the end of the follow-ups. Interview scripts and directed content analysis will be constructed based on the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Neuromatrix Model of Pain, Theoretical Domains Framework. Staff interviews will be constructed and analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Participants will also complete pain, disability, quality of life and psychological questionnaires, wear an activity tracker at all time points, and complete weekly pain and activity limitation questions using a mobile application. DISCUSSION: The study results will provide evidence to inform potential future implementation of the program. An effective, appropriately targeted, and well implemented exercise program for the long-term management (i.e., tertiary prevention) of LBP could minimize the burden of the condition on patients, the health care system and society. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05929846. This (Registration Date: July 3 2023) study has been approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board Project ID#15,354.

Can a Novel Light Weight Minimal Support Lifting Exoskeleton Modify Lifting Movement in People without Low Back Pain?

Low back pain (LBP) is a major contributor to lifting-related disabilities. To minimize the risk of back pain, emerging technologies known as lifting exoskeletons were designed to optimize lifting movements. However, it is currently unknown whether a minimally supportive exoskeleton can alter the lifting movement in people without LBP. This study aims to investigate if wearing a novel lightweight exoskeleton that minimally supports the back, hip, and knee can alter the lifting range of motion and movement variations in people without LBP. This study also aims to investigate if wearing this novel exoskeleton can result in a reliable between-day lifting movement. In two separate sessions (each one week apart), fourteen participants lifted a box (that weighed 10% of their body weight) ten times, once while wearing an exoskeleton and once while not wearing an exoskeleton. Wearing the novel exoskeleton during lifting produced moderate-high, test-retest reliability (Trunk: ICC3,1 = 0.89, 95% CI [0.67, 0.96], SEM = 9.34°; Hip: ICC3,1 = 0.63, 95% CI [0.22, 0.88], SEM = 2.57°; Knee: ICC3,1 = 0.61, 95% CI [0.23, 0.87], SEM = 2.50°). Wearing an exoskeleton significantly decreased the range of motion of the knee (F1,4 = 4.83, p = 0.031, ηp2 = 0.06). Additionally, wearing an exoskeleton significantly decreased hip (diff = 8.38, p = 0.045) and knee (diff = -8.57, p = 0.038) movement variability; however, wearing an exoskeleton did not decrease the movement variability of the body's trunk (diff = 0.60, p = 1.00). Therefore, minimally supported lifting through the use of exoskeletons can modify movement in people without LBP and produce reliable lifting movements. Wearing the novel exoskeleton is also desirable for monitoring lifting movements. Future studies should investigate the use of sensors and IMU to monitor lifting movement at work with the least amount of intrusion on an individual's movement.

The implementation study of nurses' work related low back pain prevention and care guideline: A quasi-experimental study.

AIM: To understand the implementation process and outcomes of nurses' work related low back pain (WLBP) prevention and care guideline. BACKGROUND: WLBP is a common occupational injury for clinical nurses. We developed the first evidence-based guideline of nurses' WLBP prevention and care of its kind both at home and abroad, and it is necessary for us to explore its feasibility, appropriateness and effectiveness in practice. METHODS: Based on the model of the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services, we performed a four-phase implementation study in a tertiary hospital. The study was a non-randomized concurrent controlled trial design，and multilevel measures were examined including implementation outcomes and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: For the implementation outcomes, the tailored recommendations of the guideline were found to be acceptable, appropriate, feasible, and well adopted both at the unit level and the hospital level. The clinical outcomes indicated that, compared with the control unit, nurses of the treatment unit performed better in awareness, knowledge, practice of WLBP prevention and care. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation study supports the successful application of the guideline, which can serve as a valuable evidence-based document to improve back health of nursing personnel.

Lumbar spinal loads and lumbar muscle forces evaluation with various lumbar supports and backrest inclination angles in driving posture.

PURPOSE: The low back pain of professional drivers could be linked to excessive lumbar load. This study aims at developing a musculoskeletal model to study the lumbar spinal loads and lumbar muscle forces of the human body in driving posture, so as to contribute to a better understanding of low back pain and to improve the design of vehicle seats. METHODS: A standing musculoskeletal model, including limbs, head and neck, that can reflect several activities of daily living was established based on the Christophy spine model. The model was then validated by comparing the calculated lumbar loads and muscle forces to the experimental data in the previous studies. Referring to radiology studies, the musculoskeletal model was adjusted into different driving postures with several different lumbar supports (0, 2 and 4 cm) and inclinations of the backrest (from 23° to 33°, by 2° intervals). The lumbar biomechanical load with various lumbar supports and backrest inclination angles was calculated. RESULTS: The results showed that the overall lumbar spinal load and lumbar muscle force with 4 cm lumbar support were reduced by 11.30 and 26.24%. The lumbar spinal loads and lumbar muscle forces increased first and then decreased with the increase in backrest inclination angles from 23° to 33°. The lumbar biomechanical load varied slightly with the backrest inclination angles from 29° to 33°. CONCLUSIONS: There are two findings: (i) the lumbar spinal loads at the L3-L4, L4-L5 and L5-S1, and lumbar muscle forces decreased obviously with the 4 cm lumbar support, while the seat cushion inclination angle was set to 10°. (ii) The recommended backrest inclination angles are 29° to 33° with a 10° seat cushion to the horizontal, which can keep a low level of the lumbar spinal loads and lumbar muscle forces. This study could be used to explain the association between drivers' sitting posture and the lumbar load change, and provide a reference for the prevention of low back pain.

Influence of a passive back support exoskeleton on simulated patient bed bathing: results of an exploratory study.

Low-back pain is a major concern among healthcare workers. One cause is the frequent adoption of repetitive forward bent postures in their daily activities. Occupational exoskeletons have the potential to assist workers in such situations. However, their efficacy is largely task-dependent, and their biomechanical benefit in the healthcare sector has rarely been evaluated. The present study investigates the effects of a passive back support exoskeleton in a simulated patient bed bathing task. Nine participants performed the task on a medical manikin, with and without the exoskeleton. Results show that working with the exoskeleton induced a significantly larger trunk forward flexion, by 13 deg in average. Due to this postural change, using the exoskeleton did not affect substantially the muscular and cardiovascular demands nor the perceived effort. These results illustrate that postural changes induced by exoskeleton use, whether voluntary or not, should be considered carefully since they may cancel out biomechanical benefits expected from the assistance. Practitioner summary: Low-back pain is a major concern among nurses, associated with bent postures. We observed that using a passive back-support exoskeleton during the typical patient bed bathing activity results in a larger trunk flexion, without changing muscular, cardiovascular or perceived physical effort.

Effect of office chair design features on lumbar spine posture, muscle activity and perceived pain during prolonged sitting.

Chair design features are typically compared using multiple seats, which can lead to confounding effects. Using a single chair, configurable to four designs (control, lumbar support, seat pan tilt and scapular relief), we investigated the effect of chair design on spine posture and movement, muscle activity and perceived pain in a sample of 31 asymptomatic adults. A total of 39% of the population were classified as pain developers, having significantly higher peak pain levels across most body regions. The lumbar support and seat pan tilt condition resulted in more neutral spine and pelvic postures. Greater muscle activity was found in the seat pan condition and non-pain developers displayed lower spine muscle activation levels overall. Despite some improvements in spine posture, sitting-induced pain was present in the study sample at similar proportions to those reported previously. Future studies may consider investigating interventions targeted to sitting-induced pain developers as opposed to the general population. Practitioner summary: Four office chair configurations were tested. The lumbar support and seat pan tilt conditions resulted in the most neutral back posture but did not mitigate the clinically significant levels of sitting-induced pain experienced by a large portion of the tested sample. Future work should target interventions to these individuals.

[Low Back Pain - Value of Prevention and Physiotherapy?] / Rückenschmerzen.

Low Back Pain - Value of Prevention and Physiotherapy? Abstract. Physiotherapy plays a central role in the prevention and treatment of lumbar back pain. There is no clear evidence in science on the effectiveness of individual preventive measures; however, movement and active training as central elements are indispensable here. In the treatment of lumbar back pain, however, the picture is clear: while passive measures such as heat or cold applications as well as ultrasound and electrotherapy should no longer be used alone due to the lack of evidence, the combination of active exercises and patient education shows promising success. If these are supplemented by sporadically applied manual therapy methods, the result is an evidence-based management of both acute and chronic lumbar back pain. One example of a successful implementation of current evidence for the treatment of back pain is GLA:D®, which is also in use in Switzerland since 2021.

Reducing the burden of low back pain: results from a new microsimulation model.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) causes the highest morbidity burden globally. The purpose of the present study was to project and compare the impact of three strategies for reducing the population health burden of LBP: weight loss, ergonomic interventions, and an exercise program. METHODS: We have developed a microsimulation model of LBP in Canada using a new modeling platform called SimYouLate. The initial population was derived from Cycle 1 (2001) of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). We modeled an open population 20 years of age and older. Key variables included age, sex, education, body mass index (BMI), type of work, having back problems, pain level in persons with back problems, and exercise participation. The effects of interventions on the risk of LBP were obtained from the CCHS for the effect of BMI, the Global Burden of Disease Study for occupational risks, and a published meta-analysis for the effect of exercise. All interventions lasted from 2021 to 2040. The population health impact of the interventions was calculated as a difference in years lived with disability (YLDs) between the base-case scenario and each intervention scenario, and expressed as YLDs averted per intervention unit or a proportion (%) of total LBP-related YLDs. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, LBP in 2020 was responsible for 424,900 YLDs in Canada and the amount increased to 460,312 YLDs in 2040. The effects of the interventions were as follows: 27,993 (95% CI 23,373, 32,614) YLDs averted over 20 years per 0.1 unit change in log-transformed BMI (9.5% change in BMI) among individuals who were overweight and those with obesity, 19,416 (16,275, 22,557) YLDs per 1% reduction in the proportion of workers exposed to occupational risks, and 26,058 (22,455, 29,661) YLDs averted per 1% increase in the proportion of eligible patients with back problems participating in an exercise program. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides new data on the relationship between three types of interventions and the resultant reductions in LBP burden in Canada. According to our model, each of the interventions studied could potentially result in a substantial reduction in LBP-related disability.

Effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for back care and the prevention of non-specific low back pain in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain in children and adolescents has increased in recent years. The purpose of this study was to upgrade the evidence of the most effective preventive physiotherapy interventions to improve back care in children and adolescents. METHODS: The study settings were children or adolescents aged 18 years or younger. Data were obtained from the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PEDro, Web of Science, LILACS, IBECS, and PsycINFO databases and the specialized journals BMJ and Spine. The included studies were published between May 2012 and May 2020. Controlled trials on children and adolescents who received preventive physiotherapy for back care were considered. Data on all the variables gathered in each individual study were extracted by two authors separately. Two authors assessed risk of bias of included studies using the RoB2 and quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE methodology. Data were described according to PRISMA guidelines. To calculate the effect size, a standardized mean difference "d" was used and a random-effects model was applied for the following outcome variables: behaviour, knowledge, trunk flexion muscle endurance, trunk extension muscle endurance, hamstring flexibility and posture. RESULTS: Twenty studies were finally included. The most common physiotherapy interventions were exercise, postural hygiene and physical activity. The mean age of the total sample was 11.79 years. When comparing the change from baseline to end of intervention in treatment and control groups, the following overall effect estimates were obtained: behaviour d+ = 1.19 (95% CI: 0.62 and 1.76), knowledge d+ = 1.84 (0.58 and 3.09), trunk flexion endurance d+ = 0.65 (-0.02 and 1.33), trunk extension endurance d+ = 0.71 (0.38 and 1.03), posture d+ = 0.65 (0.24 and 1.07) and hamstrings flexibility d+ = 0.46 (0.36 and 0.56). At follow-up, the measurement of the behaviour variable was between 1 and 12 months, with an effect size of d+ = 1.00 (0.37 and 1.63), whereas the knowledge variable obtained an effect size of d+ = 2.08 (-0.85 and 5.02) at 3 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Recent studies provide strong support for the use of physiotherapy in the improvement of back care and prevention of non-specific low back pain in children and adolescents. Based on GRADE methodology, we found that the evidence was from very low to moderate quality and interventions involving physical exercise, postural hygiene and physical activity should be preferred.

Low Back Pain.

Low back pain is a common problem that is the leading cause of disability and is associated with high costs. Evaluation focuses on identification of risk factors indicating a serious underlying condition and increased risk for persistent disabling symptoms in order to guide selective use of diagnostic testing (including imaging) and treatments. Nonpharmacologic therapies, including exercise and psychosocial management, are preferred for most patients with low back pain and may be supplemented with adjunctive drug therapies. Surgery and interventional procedures are options in a minority of patients who do not respond to standard treatments.

Physical Activity Advice for Prevention and Rehabilitation of Low Back Pain- Same or Different? A Study on Device-Measured Physical Activity and Register-Based Sickness Absence.

Purpose We lack knowledge on whether the advice of "being physically active" should be the same for prevention and rehabilitation of low back pain (LBP). Sickness absence is a key outcome for LBP prevention and rehabilitation. We investigated the associations between physical activity and long-term sickness absence (LTSA) among employees with and without LBP. Methods Between 2011 and 2013, 925 Danish employees wore a Actigraph GTX3 accelerometer for 1-5 workdays to measure physical activity and reported LBP in past 7 days. Employees were followed for 4 years to determine their first register-based LTSA event (≥ 6 consecutive weeks). Results Among employees with LBP, increasing moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity at work by 20 min and decreasing the remaining behaviors at work (ie., sitting, standing and light-intensity activity) by 20 min was associated with 38% (95% CI 17%; 63%) higher LTSA risk. Increasing light-intensity activity at work by 20 min and decreasing 20 min from the remaining behaviors was associated with 18% (95% CI 4%; 30%) lower risk. During leisure, increasing moderate-to-vigorous-intensity activity by 20 min or standing by 40 min was associated with 26% (95% CI 3%; 43%) lower and 37% (95% CI 0%; 87%) higher risk, respectively. Among employees without LBP, we found no such associations. Conclusions The physical activity advice ought to be different for LBP prevention and rehabilitation to reduce LTSA risk, and specified by domain and activity intensity. At work, employees with LBP should be advised to spend time on light-intensity physical activity and limit their time on moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity. During leisure, employees should spend time on moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity.

Participatory Ergonomics Intervention to Prevent Work Disability Among Workers with Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Workplace Setting.

Purpose In order to support people with low back pain (LBP) to stay at work, work arrangements are regarded important. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a workplace intervention using a participatory approach on work disability of workers with ongoing or recurrent LBP. Methods A total of 107 workers with LBP, with duration of pain for at least two consecutive weeks or recurrent pain of any duration during the last year, were randomized either to the intervention (n = 51) or control group (n = 56). The intervention included arrangements at the workplace, along with individual guidance provided by an occupational physiotherapist (OPT). The randomized intervention study used standard counselling and guidance by an OPT without workplace intervention as a comparison. Surveys were completed at baseline, and 6 and 12 months after baseline. Results There were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups on the primary outcome measure, i.e. self-assessed work ability. We found no between-group differences in perceived health, self-assessed work productivity, number of sickness absence days and severity of back pain. However, there were significant positive within-group changes in the intervention group in the intensity of LBP, perceived health and the number of sickness absence days due to LBP. Conclusion Workplace arrangements are feasible using participatory ergonomics, but more quantitative and qualitative research is needed on its utilization and effectiveness among workers with LBP.

An Evaluation of an Innovative Exercise to Relieve Chronic Low Back Pain in Sedentary Workers.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of a novel supported dynamic lumbar extension with the abdominal drawing-in maneuver (ADIM) technique on stature change, deep abdominal muscle activity, trunk muscle fatigue, and pain intensity during prolonged sitting in chronic low back pain (CLBP) participants. BACKGROUND: Prolonged sitting can cause trunk muscle fatigue from continuous contraction of deep trunk muscles in seated postures. Deficiency of activity of deep muscles can reduce muscular support of the spine, causing stress on spinal structures, which could result in pain. METHOD: Thirty participants with CLBP were randomly allocated: (a) control-sitting without exercise, and (b) intervention-supported dynamic lumbar extension with the ADIM technique. RESULTS: Compared to the intervention condition, the control condition demonstrated significantly greater deterioration in stature change, increased levels of deep trunk muscle fatigue, and an increase in pain during prolonged sitting. CONCLUSION: The supported dynamic lumbar extension with the ADIM technique appears to provide a protective effect on detrimental stature change and deep trunk muscle fatigue. In addition, it prevented an increase in pain intensity during prolonged sitting in people with CLBP. APPLICATION: Sedentary behavior harms health, particularly affecting the lower back. Clinicians can use the intervention to induce dynamic lumbar movement, and this exercise can maintain deep trunk muscle activity during prolonged sitting, thereby helping to prevent low back pain (LBP) problems.

The effect of health education on prevention of low back pain for health caregivers and cleaning workers.

AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of health education on prevention of low back pain for health caregivers and cleaning workers. BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common health problem in the workplace. Health education is important in the prevention and recurrence of low back pain. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design with a pre-test and post-test control group was used. The population of the study consisted of health caregivers and cleaning workers working in a university hospital in Turkey. A total of 120 participants, 60 in the intervention group and 60 in the control group, were included in the study. Data were collected between October 2016 and April 2017. A questionnaire, the Oswestry Low Back Pain Scale and the Knowledge Evaluation Form were used to collect data. Health education was given to the intervention group. RESULTS: Following the health education, the mean scores of the Oswestry Low Back Pain Scale in the intervention group were significantly lower than the control group and had a larger effect size. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for the effectiveness of health education in the prevention of low back pain in health caregivers and cleaning workers.

Does intra-lumbar flexion during lifting differ in manual workers with and without a history of low back pain? A cross-sectional laboratory study.

Advice to limit or avoid a flexed lumbar curvature during lifting is widely promoted to reduce the risk of low back pain (LBP), yet there is very limited evidence to support this relationship. To provide higher quality evidence this study compared intra-lumbar flexion in manual workers with (n = 21) and without a history of LBP (n = 21) during a repeated lifting task. In contrast to common expectations, the LBP group demonstrated less peak absolute intra-lumbar flexion during lifting than the noLBP group [adjusted difference -3.7° (95%CI -6.9 to -0.6)]. The LBP group was also further from the end of range intra-lumbar flexion and did not use more intra-lumbar range of motion during any lift condition (both symmetrical and asymmetrical lifts and different box loads). Peak absolute intra-lumbar flexion was more variable in the LBP group during lifting and both groups increased their peak absolute intra-lumbar flexion over the lift repetitions. This high-quality capture of intra-lumbar spine flexion during repeated lifting in a clinically relevant cohort questions dominant safe lifting advice.Practitioner summary: Lifting remains a common trigger for low back pain (LBP). This study demonstrated that people with LBP, lift with less intra-lumbar flexion than those without LBP. Providing the best quality in-vivo laboratory evidence, that greater intra-lumbar flexion is not associated with LBP in manual workers, raising questions about lifting advice.