Low back pain among office workers in three Spanish-speaking countries: findings from the CUPID study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the differences in the prevalence and incidence of low back pain (LBP) and associated disability among office workers in Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Spain. METHODS: Data were collected at baseline (n=947, 93% response) in November 2007 and at follow-up after 12 months (n=853, 90% response). Six outcome measures were examined: baseline prevalence of (1) LBP in the past 12 months, (2) LBP in the past month and (3) disabling LBP in the past month; and at follow-up: (4) incidence of new LBP in the past month, (5) new disabling LBP and (6) persistent LBP. Differences in prevalence by country were characterised by ORs with 95% CIs, before and after adjustment for covariates. RESULTS: Prevalence of LBP in the past month among office employees in Costa Rica (46.0%) and Nicaragua (44.2%) was higher than in Spain (33.6%). Incidence of new LBP was 37.0% in Nicaragua (OR=2.49; 95% CI 1.57 to 3.95), 14.9% in Costa Rica (OR=0.74; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.34) and 19.0% in Spain (reference). Incidence of new disabling LBP was higher in Nicaragua (17.2%; OR=2.49; 95% CI 1.43 to 4.34) and Costa Rica (13.6%; OR=1.89; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.48) than Spain (7.7%), while persistence of LBP was higher only in Nicaragua. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of LBP and disabling LBP was higher in Costa Rican and Nicaraguan office workers than in Spain, but the incidence was higher mainly in Nicaragua. Measured sociodemographic, job-related and health-related variables only partly explained the differences between countries, and further research is needed to explore reasons for the remaining differences.

Descriptive Epidemiology of Somatising Tendency: Findings from the CUPID Study.

Somatising tendency, defined as a predisposition to worry about common somatic symptoms, is importantly associated with various aspects of health and health-related behaviour, including musculoskeletal pain and associated disability. To explore its epidemiological characteristics, and how it can be specified most efficiently, we analysed data from an international longitudinal study. A baseline questionnaire, which included questions from the Brief Symptom Inventory about seven common symptoms, was completed by 12,072 participants aged 20-59 from 46 occupational groups in 18 countries (response rate 70%). The seven symptoms were all mutually associated (odds ratios for pairwise associations 3.4 to 9.3), and each contributed to a measure of somatising tendency that exhibited an exposure-response relationship both with multi-site pain (prevalence rate ratios up to six), and also with sickness absence for non-musculoskeletal reasons. In most participants, the level of somatising tendency was little changed when reassessed after a mean interval of 14 months (75% having a change of 0 or 1 in their symptom count), although the specific symptoms reported at follow-up often differed from those at baseline. Somatising tendency was more common in women than men, especially at older ages, and varied markedly across the 46 occupational groups studied, with higher rates in South and Central America. It was weakly associated with smoking, but not with level of education. Our study supports the use of questions from the Brief Symptom Inventory as a method for measuring somatising tendency, and suggests that in adults of working age, it is a fairly stable trait.

Upper extremity musculoskeletal pain among office workers in three Spanish-speaking countries: findings from the CUPID study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence and incidence of upper extremity musculoskeletal pain (UEMP) and related disability among office workers in Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Spain. METHODS: Data from the multinational Cultural and Psychosocial Influences on Disability (CUPID) study on 947 (93%) participants at baseline with 90% follow-up after 12 months were employed. Logistic regression was used to estimate the associations (ORs and corresponding 95% CIs) between country and six outcomes: baseline prevalence of (1) UEMP in past 12 months, (2) UEMP in past month and (3) disabling UEMP in past month; (4) incidence of new UEMP at follow-up; (5) incidence of new disabling UEMP at follow-up and (6) persistence of UEMP at follow-up, after adjustment for sociodemographic, job-related and health-related covariates. RESULTS: Baseline prevalence of UEMP in the past month was higher in Costa Rica (53.6%) (OR=1.89; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.62) and Nicaragua (51.9%) (OR=1.74; 95% CI 1.28 to 2.35) than in Spain (38.4%). Compared to Spain (33.2%), the incidence of new UEMP was 50.4% in Costa Rica (OR=2.04; 95% CI 1.34 to 3.12) and 60.2% in Nicaragua (OR=3.04; 95% CI 2.06 to 4.50). The incidence of disabling UEMP was higher in Nicaragua (OR=2.57; 95% CI 1.50 to 4.41) and Costa Rica (OR=2.16; 95% CI 1.22 to 3.84) when compared to Spain. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of UEMP was approximately twofold higher and its incidence twofold to threefold higher in Costa Rica and Nicaragua as compared with Spain. Between-country differences were only partially explained by the covariates analysed. Research is needed to explore other aspects of work and cultural attributes that might explain the residual differences in UEMP.

Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers can suffer from occupational stress which may lead to serious mental and physical health problems. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of work and person-directed interventions in preventing stress at work in healthcare workers. METHODS: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials Specialised Register, MEDLINE, PsychInfo and Cochrane Occupational Health Field database. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) of interventions aimed at preventing psychological stress in healthcare workers. For work-directed interventions interrupted time series and prospective cohort were also eligible. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis were performed where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 RCTs, three cluster-randomised trials and two crossover trials, including a total of 1,564 participants in intervention groups and 1,248 controls. Two trials were of high quality. Interventions were grouped into 1) person-directed: cognitive-behavioural, relaxation, music-making, therapeutic massage and multicomponent; and 2) work-directed: attitude change and communication, support from colleagues and participatory problem solving and decision-making, and changes in work organisation. There is limited evidence that person-directed interventions can reduce stress (standardised mean difference or SMD -0.85; 95% CI -1.21, -0.49); burnout: Emotional Exhaustion (weighted mean difference or WMD -5.82; 95% CI -11.02, -0.63) and lack of Personal Accomplishment (WMD -3.61; 95% CI -4.65, -2.58); and anxiety: state anxiety (WMD -9.42; 95% CI -16.92, -1.93) and trait anxiety (WMD -6.91; 95% CI -12.80, -1.01). One trial showed that stress remained low a month after intervention (WMD -6.10; 95% CI -8.44, -3.76). Another trial showed a reduction in Emotional Exhaustion (Mean Difference or MD -2.69; 95% CI -4.20, -1.17) and in lack of Personal Accomplishment (MD -2.41; 95% CI -3.83, -0.99) maintained up to two years when the intervention was boosted with refresher sessions. Two studies showed a reduction that was maintained up to a month in state anxiety (WMD -8.31; 95% CI -11.49, -5.13) and trait anxiety (WMD -4.09; 95% CI -7.60, -0.58). There is limited evidence that work-directed interventions can reduce stress symptoms (Mean Difference or MD -0.34; 95% CI -0.62, -0.06); Depersonalization (MD -1.14; 95% CI -2.18, -0.10), and general symptoms (MD -2.90; 95% CI -5.16, -0.64). One study showed that the difference in stress symptom level was nonsignificant at six months (MD -0.19; 95% CI -0.49, 0.11). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence is available for the effectiveness of interventions to reduce stress levels in healthcare workers. Larger and better quality trials are needed.