Symptom burden and follow-up of patients with neck and back complaints in specialized outpatient care: a national register study.

Back and neck pain are common in the population, especially among immigrants. In Norway's specialist care system, treating these patients typically involves a multidisciplinary approach based on the biopsychosocial model. However, language and cultural differences may create barriers to participation. Immigrants are often underrepresented in clinical studies, but a register-based approach can enhance their participation in research. This study aimed to compare both the symptom burden, and treatment, among Norwegians, non-Norwegians, and patients requiring translator service for back and neck pain within the Norwegian specialist care system. The Norwegian neck and back registry is a National Quality Register, established in 2012 and fully digitized in late 2020. The baseline data includes demographics and patient recorded outcome measures including Oswestry Disability Index, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs, pain rating on a numeric rating scale, Hopkins Symptom Checklist and EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire on health related quality of life. During the two-year study period, a total of 14,124 patients were invited, and 10,060 (71%) participated. Norwegian patients reported less pain, better function assessed by Oswestry Disability Index, lower fear avoidance beliefs, less emotional distress, and higher health related quality of life compared to non-Norwegians. We found that patients with female gender, who were younger, more educated and exhibited fear-avoidance behavior were significantly more likely to receive multidisciplinary treatment. We found no difference in the proportion of Norwegian and non-Norwegian patients receiving multidisciplinary treatment [odds ratio (OR) 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-1.16)]. However, patients needing a translator were less likely to receive multidisciplinary treatment compared to those who didn't require translation [OR 0.41 (95% CI (0.25-0.66)]. We found that non-Norwegian patients experience a higher symptom burden compared to Norwegian. We found that both non-Norwegians and patient in need of translator were to a greater extent recommended treatment in primary health care. The proportion of non-Norwegians patients receiving multidisciplinary treatment was similar to Norwegians, but those needing a translator were less likely to receive such treatment.

Registered nurses' exposure to workplace aggression in Norway: 12-month prevalence rates, perpetrators, and current turnover intention.

BACKGROUND: Identifying occupational health hazards among Registered Nurses (RNs) and other health personnel and implementing effective preventive measures are crucial to the long-term sustainability of health services. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess the 12-month prevalence rates of exposure to workplace aggression, including physical violence, threats of violence, sexual harassment, and bullying; (2) to identify whether the perpetrators were colleagues, managers, subordinates, or patients and their relatives; (3) to determine whether previous exposure to these hazards was associated with RNs' current turnover intention; and (4) to frame workplace aggression from an occupational health and safety perspective. METHODS: The third version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ III) was used to assess RNs' exposure to workplace aggression and turnover intention. A national sample of 8,800 RNs in Norway, representative of the entire population of registered nurses in terms of gender and geography, was analysed. Binary and ordinal logistic regression analyses were conducted, and odds for exposure and intention to leave are presented, with and without controls for RNs' gender, age, and the type of health service they work in. RESULTS: The 12-month prevalence rates for exposure were 17.0% for physical violence, 32.5% for threats of violence, 12.6% for sexual harassment, and 10.5% for bullying. In total, 42.6% of the RNs had experienced at least one of these types of exposure during the past 12 months, and exposure to more than one of these hazards was common. Most perpetrators who committed physical acts and sexual harassment were patients, while bullying was usually committed by colleagues. There was a strong statistical association between exposure to all types of workplace aggression and RNs' intention to leave. The strongest association was for bullying, which greatly increased the odds of looking for work elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to prevent exposure to workplace aggression should be emphasised to retain health personnel and to secure the supply of skilled healthcare workers. The results indicate a need for improvements. To ensure the sustainability of health services, labour and health authorities should join forces to develop effective workplace measures to strengthen prevention, mitigation, and preparedness regarding incidents of workplace aggression in health services and the response and recovery regarding incidents that could not be prevented.

The Norwegian version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ III): Initial validation study using a national sample of registered nurses.

BACKGROUND: Employers are legally obligated to ensure the safety and health of employees, including the organizational and psychosocial working environment. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ III) covers multiple dimensions of the work environment. COPSOQ III has three parts: a) work environment b) conflicts and offensive behaviours and c) health and welfare. We translated all three parts into Norwegian and evaluated the statistical properties of the 28 work environment dimensions in part a), using a sample of registered nurses. METHODS: The original English version was translated into Norwegian and back translated into English; the two versions were compared, and adjustments made. In total, 86 of 99 items from the translated version were included in a survey to which 8804 registered nurses responded. Item response theory models designed for ordinal manifest variables were used to evaluate construct validity and identify potential redundant items. A standard confirmatory factor analysis was performed to verify the latent dimensionality established in the original version, and a more exploratory factor analysis without restrictions is included to determine dependency between items and to identify separable dimensions. RESULTS: The measure of sampling adequacy shows that the data are well suited for factor analyses. The latent dimensionality in the original version is confirmed in the Norwegian translated version and the scale reliability is high for all dimensions except 'Demands for Hiding Emotions'. In this homogenous sample, eight of the 28 dimensions are found not to be separate dimensions as items covering these dimensions loaded onto the same factor. Moreover, little information is provided at the low and high ends of exposure for some dimensions in this sample. Of the 86 items included, 14 are found to be potential candidates for removal to obtain a shorter Norwegian version. CONCLUSION: The established Norwegian translation of COPSOQ III can be used in further research about working environment factors and health and wellbeing in Norway. The extended use of the instrument internationally enables comparative studies, which can increase the knowledge and understanding of similarities and differences between labour markets in different countries. This first validation study shows that the Norwegian version has strong statistical properties like the original, and can be used to assess work environment factors, including relational and emotional risk factors and resources available at the workplace.

Effect of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Self-Management App on Musculoskeletal Health in Patients With Neck and/or Low Back Pain Referred to Specialist Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Self-management is a key element in the care of persistent neck and low back pain. Individually tailored self-management support delivered via a smartphone app in a specialist care setting has not been tested. Objective: To determine the effect of individually tailored self-management support delivered via an artificial intelligence-based app (SELFBACK) adjunct to usual care vs usual care alone or nontailored web-based self-management support (e-Help) on musculoskeletal health. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial recruited adults 18 years or older with neck and/or low back pain who had been referred to and accepted on a waiting list for specialist care at a multidisciplinary hospital outpatient clinic for back, neck, and shoulder rehabilitation. Participants were enrolled from July 9, 2020, to April 29, 2021. Of 377 patients assessed for eligibility, 76 did not complete the baseline questionnaire, and 7 did not meet the eligibility criteria (ie, did not own a smartphone, were unable to take part in exercise, or had language barriers); the remaining 294 patients were included in the study and randomized to 3 parallel groups, with follow-up of 6 months. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive app-based individually tailored self-management support in addition to usual care (app group), web-based nontailored self-management support in addition to usual care (e-Help group), or usual care alone (usual care group). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in musculoskeletal health measured by the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included change in musculoskeletal health measured by the MSK-HQ at 6 weeks and 6 months and pain-related disability, pain intensity, pain-related cognition, and health-related quality of life at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Results: Among 294 participants (mean [SD] age, 50.6 [14.9] years; 173 women [58.8%]), 99 were randomized to the app group, 98 to the e-Help group, and 97 to the usual care group. At 3 months, 243 participants (82.7%) had complete data on the primary outcome. In the intention-to-treat analysis at 3 months, the adjusted mean difference in MSK-HQ score between the app and usual care groups was 0.62 points (95% CI, -1.66 to 2.90 points; P = .60). The adjusted mean difference between the app and e-Help groups was 1.08 points (95% CI, -1.24 to 3.41 points; P = .36). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, individually tailored self-management support delivered via an artificial intelligence-based app adjunct to usual care was not significantly more effective in improving musculoskeletal health than usual care alone or web-based nontailored self-management support in patients with neck and/or low back pain referred to specialist care. Further research is needed to investigate the utility of implementing digitally supported self-management interventions in the specialist care setting and to identify instruments that capture changes in self-management behavior. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04463043.

Individually tailored self-management app-based intervention (selfBACK) versus a self-management web-based intervention (e-Help) or usual care in people with low back and neck pain referred to secondary care: protocol for a multiarm randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are common and costly conditions. Self-management is a key element in the care of persistent LBP and NP. Artificial intelligence can be used to support and tailor self-management interventions, but their effectiveness needs to be ascertained. The aims of this trial are (1) to evaluate the effectiveness of an individually tailored app-based self-management intervention (selfBACK) adjunct to usual care in people with LBP and/or NP in secondary care compared with usual care only, and (2) to compare the effectiveness of selfBACK with a web-based self-management intervention without individual tailoring (e-Help). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a randomised, assessor-blind clinical trial with three parallel arms: (1) selfBACK app adjunct to usual care; (2) e-Help website adjunct to usual care and (3) usual care only. Patients referred to St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim (Norway) with LBP and/or NP and accepted for assessment/treatment at the multidisciplinary outpatient clinic for back or neck rehabilitation are invited to the study. Eligible and consenting participants are randomised to one of the three arms with equal allocation ratio. We aim to include 279 participants (93 in each arm). Outcome variables are assessed at baseline (before randomisation) and at 6-week, 3-month and 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome is musculoskeletal health measured by the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire at 3 months. A mixed-methods process evaluation will document patients' and clinicians' experiences with the interventions. A health economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of both interventions' adjunct to usual care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Central Norway (Ref. 2019/64084). The results of the trial will be published in peer-review journals and presentations at national and international conferences relevant to this topic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04463043.

The effect of infliximab in patients with chronic low back pain and Modic changes (the BackToBasic study): study protocol of a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is common and a significant number of patients experience chronic low back pain. Current treatment options offer small to moderate effects. Patients with vertebral bone marrow lesions visualized as Modic changes on magnetic resonance imaging may represent a subgroup within the low back pain population. There is evidence for inflammatory mediators being involved in development of Modic changes; hence, suppression of inflammation could be a treatment strategy for these patients. This study examines the effect of anti-inflammatory treatment with the TNF-α inhibitor infliximab in patients with chronic low back pain and Modic changes. METHODS/DESIGN: The BackToBasic trial is a multicenter, double blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at six hospitals in Norway, comparing intravenous infusions with infliximab with placebo. One hundred twenty-six patients aged 18-65 with chronic low back pain and type 1 Modic changes will be recruited from secondary care outpatients' clinics. The primary outcome is back pain-specific disability at day 154 (5 months). The study is designed to detect a difference in change of 10 (SD 18) in the Oswestry Disability Index at day 154/ 5 months. The study also aims to refine MRI-assessment, investigate safety and cost-effectiveness and explore the underlying biological mechanisms of Modic changes. DISCUSSION: Finding treatments that target underlying mechanisms could pose new treatment options for patients with low back pain. Suppression of inflammation could be a treatment strategy for patients with low back pain and Modic changes. This paper presents the design of the BackToBasic study, where we will assess the effect of an anti-inflammatory treatment versus placebo in patients with chronic low back pain and type 1 Modic changes. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT03704363 . The EudraCT Number: 2017-004861-29.

Association of Modic change types and their short tau inversion recovery signals with clinical characteristics- a cross sectional study of chronic low back pain patients in the AIM-study.

BACKGROUND: Modic Changes (MCs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) signal changes in the vertebral bone marrow extending from the vertebral endplate) may represent a subgroup of nonspecific chronic low back pain that could benefit from a specific management. The primary aim was to compare clinical characteristics between patients with type 1 versus type 2 MCs. The secondary aim was to explore associations between clinical characteristics and MC related short tau inversion recovery (STIR) signals. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used baseline data prospectively collected between 2015 and 2017 on the 180 patients included in the AIM-study (Antibiotics In Modic changes), a randomized controlled trial in a Norwegian hospital out-patient setting of patients with chronic low back pain, a lumbar disc herniation within the last 2 years, low back pain intensity score ≥ 5 (on a 0-10 scale) and current type 1 or type 2 MCs at the previously herniated lumbar disc level. We used prespecified clinical characteristics including self-report measures, physiologic measures and functional measures from clinical history and examination. The diagnostic accuracy of various clinical characteristics to discriminate between patients with type 1 MCs (with or without additional type 2 MCs) and patents with type 2 MCs only (not type 1) were assessed by calculating the area under the receiver-operating curve. We assessed the correlations of clinical characteristics with details of MC related STIR signal increase. RESULTS: No clinical characteristic differed between patients with type 1 (n = 118) versus type 2 (but not type 1) (n = 62) MCs. The clinical characteristics showed no/minor differences or no/weak correlations with MC related STIR signal increase. Patients with a positive Springing test (at any lumbar level) had slightly less volume of STIR signal increase than those with a negative test (mean difference 1.3 on a 0-48 scale, 95% CI 0.3 to 2.3). CONCLUSION: Clinical characteristics were similar for patients with type 1 MCs and patients with type 2 MCs, and showed no clinically relevant correlations with MC related STIR signal increase. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02323412, First registered 23 December 2014.

The Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) Does it Really Measure Fear Beliefs?

STUDY DESIGN: A cohort study with 12 months of follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To assess (1) the unidimensionality of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and (2) whether single questions in the FABQ predict future sickness absence as well as the whole scale. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The fear-avoidance model is a leading model in describing the link between musculoskeletal pain and chronic disability. However, reported measurement properties have been inconsistent regarding the FABQ. METHODS: Individuals (n = 722) sick listed due to musculoskeletal, unspecified or common mental health disorders undergoing rehabilitation was included. A Rasch analysis was applied to evaluate the measurement properties of FABQ and its two subscales (physical activity and work). Linear regression was used to assess how well single items predicted future sickness absence. RESULTS: The Rasch analysis did not support the FABQ or its two subscales representing a unidimensional construct. The 7-point scoring of the items was far too fine meshed and in the present population the data only supported a yes or no or a 3-point response option. The items were invariant to age, whereas two of the items revealed sex differences. The item "I do not think that I will be back to my normal work within 3 months" was the best predictor of future sickness absence. Adding the item "I should not do my regular work with my present pain" improved the prediction model slightly. CONCLUSION: The FABQ is not a good measure of fear-avoidance beliefs about work or physical activity, and the predictive property of the FABQ questionnaire is most likely related to expectations rather than fear. Based on these results we do not recommend using the FABQ to measure fear-avoidance beliefs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Efficacy of antibiotic treatment in patients with chronic low back pain and Modic changes (the AIM study): double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, multicentre trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of three months of antibiotic treatment compared with placebo in patients with chronic low back pain, previous disc herniation, and vertebral endplate changes (Modic changes). DESIGN: Double blind, parallel group, placebo controlled, multicentre trial. SETTING: Hospital outpatient clinics at six hospitals in Norway. PARTICIPANTS: 180 patients with chronic low back pain, previous disc herniation, and type 1 (n=118) or type 2 (n=62) Modic changes enrolled from June 2015 to September 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to three months of oral treatment with either 750 mg amoxicillin or placebo three times daily. The allocation sequence was concealed by using a computer generated number on the prescription. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score (range 0-24) at one year follow-up in the intention to treat population. The minimal clinically important between group difference in mean RMDQ score was predefined as 4. RESULTS: In the primary analysis of the total cohort at one year, the difference in the mean RMDQ score between the amoxicillin group and the placebo group was -1.6 (95% confidence interval -3.1 to 0.0, P=0.04). In the secondary analysis, the difference in the mean RMDQ score between the groups was -2.3 (-4.2 to-0.4, P=0.02) for patients with type 1 Modic changes and -0.1 (-2.7 to 2.6, P=0.95) for patients with type 2 Modic changes. Fifty patients (56%) in the amoxicillin group experienced at least one drug related adverse event compared with 31 (34%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this study on patients with chronic low back pain and Modic changes at the level of a previous disc herniation, three months of treatment with amoxicillin did not provide a clinically important benefit compared with placebo. Secondary analyses and sensitivity analyses supported this finding. Therefore, our results do not support the use of antibiotic treatment for chronic low back pain and Modic changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02323412.

Changes in fear-avoidance beliefs and work participation after occupational rehabilitation for musculoskeletal- and common mental disorders: secondary outcomes of two randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: To assess: (i) whether changes in the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) were greater for multicomponent inpatient rehabilitation vs outpatient cognitive behavioural therapy, and (ii) whether baseline scores and changes (pre- to post-intervention) in FABQ were associated with future work-participation. METHODS: Individuals sick-listed for 2-12 months were randomized to inpatient multicomponent rehabilitation (3.5 weeks or 4+4 days) or outpatient cognitive behavioural therapy (6 sessions/6 weeks). RESULTS: A total of 334 subjects were included. There were no significant differences on FABQ between the in- and out-patient programmes during follow-up. Participants with consistently low scores on the work subscale had more work-participation days, followed by those who reduced their scores. Participants who increased, or had consistently high scores had the least workdays. For the physical activity subscale, the associations were weaker. FABQ-work scores at baseline were associated with number of work-participation days for both musculoskeletal and psychological diagnoses, and more strongly for the latter group. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that FABQ could be a useful prognostic tool for individuals on sick leave due to musculoskeletal or psychological disorders. There was no evidence that inpatient occupational rehabilitation reduces FABQ scores more than outpatient cognitive behavioural therapy.

Risk classification of patients referred to secondary care for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Nonspecific low back pain is characterized by a wide range of possible triggering and conserving factors, and initial screening needs to scope widely with multilevel addressment of possible factors contributing to the pain experience. Screening tools for classification of patients have been developed to support clinicians. The primary aim of this study was to assess the criterion validity of STarT Back Screening Tool (STarT Back) against the more comprehensive Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ), in a Norwegian sample of patients referred to secondary care for low back pain. Secondary aims were to assess risk classification of the patients, as indicated by both instruments, and to compare pain and work characteristics between patients in the different STarT Back risk categories. METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional survey among patients with low back pain referred to outpatient secondary care assessment at Trondheim University Hospital, Norway. Cohen's Kappa coefficient, Pearson's r and a Bland-Altman plot were used to assess criterion validity of STarT Back against ÖMPSQ. Furthermore, linear regression was used to estimate mean differences with 95% CI in pain and work related variables between the risk groups defined by the STarT Back tool. RESULTS: A total of 182 persons participated in the study. The Pearsons correlation coefficient for correspondence between scores on ÖMPSQ and STarT Back was 0.76. The Kappa value for classification agreement between the instruments was 0.35. Risk group classification according to STarT Back allocated 34.1% of the patients in the low risk group, 42.3% in the medium risk, and 23.6% in the high risk group. According to ÖMPSQ, 24.7% of the participants were allocated in the low risk group, 28.6% in the medium risk, and 46.7% in the high risk group. Patients classified with high risk according to Start Back showed a higher score on pain and work related characteristics as measured by ÖMPSQ. CONCLUSION: The correlation between score on the screening tools was good, while the classification agreement between the screening instruments was low. Screening for work factors may be important in patients referred to multidisciplinary management in secondary care.

Antibiotic treatment In patients with chronic low back pain and Modic changes (the AIM study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A previous randomised controlled trial (RCT) of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) and vertebral bone marrow (Modic) changes (MCs) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), reported that a 3-month, high-dose course of antibiotics had a better effect than placebo at 12 months' follow-up. The present study examines the effects of antibiotic treatment in chronic LBP patients with MCs at the level of a lumbar disc herniation, similar to the previous study. It also aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of the treatment, refine the MRI assessment of MCs, and further evaluate the impact of the treatment and the pathogenesis of MCs by studying genetic variability and the gene and protein expression of inflammatory biomarkers. METHODS/DESIGN: A double-blinded RCT is conducted at six hospitals in Norway, comparing orally administered amoxicillin 750 mg, or placebo three times a day, over a period of 100 days in patients with chronic LBP and type I or II MCs at the level of a MRI-confirmed lumbar disc herniation within the preceding 2 years. The inclusion will be stopped when at least 80 patients are included in each of the two MC type groups. In each MC type group, the study is designed to detect (ß = 0.1, α = 0.05) a mean difference of 4 (standard deviation 5) in the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire score between the two treatment groups (amoxicillin or placebo) at 1-year follow-up. The study includes cost-effectiveness measures. Blood samples are assessed for security measures and for possible inflammatory mediators and biomarkers at different time points. MCs are evaluated on MRI at baseline and after 12 months. A blinded intention-to-treat analysis of treatment effects will be performed in the total sample and in each MC type group. DISCUSSION: To ensure the appropriate use of antibiotic treatment, its effect in chronic LBP patients with MCs should be re-assessed. This study will investigate the effects and cost-effectiveness of amoxicillin in patients with chronic LBP and MCs at the level of a disc herniation. The study may also help to refine imaging and characterise the biomarkers of MCs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02323412 . Registered on 21 November 2014.

Demand, Control and Support at Work Among Sick-Listed Patients with Neck or Back Pain: A Prospective Study.

Purpose The main aim of this study was to assess changes in perceived demand, control and support at work of neck and back pain patients over 1 year. We also hypothesised that perceived changes in demand, control and support at work were associated with clinical improvement, reduced fear-avoidance beliefs and successful return to work. Methods Four hundred and five sick-listed patients referred to secondary care with neck or back pain were originally included in an interventional study. Of these, two hundred and twenty-six patients reported perceived psychosocial work factors at both baseline and 1-year follow-up, and they were later included in this prospective study. Changes in demand, control and support dimensions were measured by a total of nine variables. Results At the group level, no significant differences were found among the measured subscales. At the individual level, the regression analyses showed that decreases in fear-avoidance beliefs about work were consistently related to decreases in demand and increases in control, whereas decreases in disability, anxiety and depression were related to increases in support subscales. Conclusions The perception of demand, control and support appear to be stable over 1 year in patients with neck and back pain, despite marked improvement in pain and disability. Disability, anxiety, depression and fear-avoidance beliefs about work were significantly associated with the perception of the work environment, whereas neck and back pain were not.

Change in pain, disability and influence of fear-avoidance in a work-focused intervention on neck and back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neck and back pain are among the most common causes of prolonged disability, and development of interventions with effect on pain, disability and return to work is important. Reduction of fear avoidance might be one mechanism behind improvement after interventions. The aim of the present study was to evaluate changes in pain and disability at the 12-month follow-up of patients with neck and back pain treated with a work-focused intervention compared to patients treated with standard interventions, and the influence of improvement fear avoidance beliefs during the interventions on pain, disability and return to work at 12-month follow-up. METHODS: 413 employed patients with back or neck pain referred to secondary care, and sick-listed between 4 weeks and 12 months, were randomized to a work-focused rehabilitation or control interventions. Follow-up was conducted 4 and 12 months after inclusion. The groups were compared (independent sample t-test) regarding differences in disability scores (Oswestry disability index/neck disability index) and pain (numeric rating scale) from baseline to 12-month follow-up. Changes in fear avoidance beliefs (FABQ) from baseline to 4 month follow-up were calculated, and the association between this change and return to work, pain and disability at 12 months were tested in stepwise multiple logistic regression models. RESULTS: Pain and, disability scores decreased to in both the work-focused and control intervention to 12-month follow-up, and there were no significant differences between the groups. FABQ decreased similarly in both groups to 4 month follow-up. The logistic regression model revealed an association between a reduced FABQ work score at 4 months and return to work within one year (adjusted OR 3.60, 95% CI 1.19 to 10.88). Reduced FABQ physical activity score at 4 months was associated with decreased disability after 12 months (adjusted OR (3.65. 95% CI 1.43 to 9.28). CONCLUSIONS: Short work-focused rehabilitation had the same effect on pain and disability as control interventions. Reduction in FABQ-W score after treatment seems to be an important predictor for return to work in both groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00840697.

Pain and disability do not influence psychological and social factors at work among sick-listed patients with neck and back pain.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether living with neck and back pain, disability, and mental disorders influences the perception of psychological and social factors at work among sick-listed patients. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of the present study was to examine the associations between pain, disability, anxiety, depression, and perceived psychological and social factors at work among sick-listed patients with neck and back pain. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of 380 sick-listed patients with neck and low-back pain who were referred to spine clinics at two Norwegian university hospitals. Ordinal regression was applied, with psychological and social factors at work as the dependent variable. RESULTS: Pain was not associated with psychological and social factors at work. Disability was associated with a minor increase in the perception of demands among women, but not men. Women with high anxiety or depression scores experienced less control over work situations and less positive challenges at work. Men with high depression scores perceived low support. CONCLUSIONS: Sick-listed patients with neck and back pain who had concurrent anxiety or depression reported increased psychological and social challenges at work. To provide suitable treatment in the clinical setting, further attention should be paid to the interaction between anxiety or depression and perceived job strain.

The effect of work-focused rehabilitation among patients with neck and back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter randomized trial with patients listed as sick for 1 to 12 months due to neck or back pain and referred to secondary care. OBJECTIVE: To compare the return-to-work (RTW) rate among patients offered work-focused rehabilitation or multidisciplinary rehabilitation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A growing number of studies have focused on the RTW processes associated with patients with back pain. Many studies have combined a workplace focus with multidisciplinary treatments; however, this focus has not been evaluated in Norway among patients with neck and back pain thus far. METHODS: A total of 405 patients who were referred to the spine clinics at 2 university hospitals in Norway were randomly assigned into work-focused and control intervention groups. The existing treatments at each hospital were used as the control interventions, which entailed either a comprehensive multidisciplinary intervention or a brief multidisciplinary intervention. The RTW rates and proportions were compared at 12 months. RESULTS: During the first 12 months after inclusion, 142 (70%) participants in the work-focused rehabilitation group and 152 (75%) participants in the control group returned to work. The median time to RTW was 161 days in the work-focused group and 158 days in the control group. A comparison of the work-focused and control interventions revealed a relative RTW probability (hazard ratio) of 0.94 (95% confidence interval = 0.75-1.17) after adjusting for age, sex, and education. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that a focus on the workplace in specialist care does not substantially alter the RTW rate compared with standard multidisciplinary treatments.

Fear-avoidance beliefs associated with perceived psychological and social factors at work among patients with neck and back pain: a cross-sectional multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Neck and back pain are common and often account for absenteeism at work. Factors at work as well as fear-avoidance beliefs may influence sick-leave in these patients. The aims of this study were to assess: (1) how sick-listed patients in specialised care perceive demand, control, support, effort, reward, and overcommitment at work compared to a general reference group of workers; (2) if women and men report demand, control, support, effort, reward, and overcommitment differently; and (3) the association between psychological and social factors at work and fear-avoidance beliefs about work. METHODS: A cross-sectional multicentre study was carried out in 373 patients on sick leave due to neck and back pain. Psychosocial work factors were measured by demand, control, and support, (Nordic Questionnaire for Psychological and Social Factors at Work), and effort, reward and overcommitment (Effort Reward Imbalance Questionnaire). Fear avoidance beliefs about work were measured by the Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire Work subscale (FABQ-W). RESULTS: Although the patients differed significantly from a reference working group regarding several subscales of demand, control, support, effort, reward, and overcommitment, the magnitude of these differences were small. The study population also reported significantly higher scores for 'demand for physical endurance' than the reference population, and Cohen's d = 0.55 here indicated a medium degree of difference. Female patients reported significantly higher on support, whereas male patients reported significantly higher demand for physical endurance, quantitative demand, effort, and overcommitment. Demand for physical endurance, job control, job support, high reward, and overcommitment were significantly associated with FABQ-W. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived psychological and social factors at work were strongly associated with fear-avoidance beliefs about work in sick-listed neck and back patients. The demand for physical endurance, control, support, high reward, as well as overcommittment at work outweighed pain and added to the burden of emotional distress and disability regarding fear-avoidance beliefs.