Impact of Workplace Exposure and Stress on Neck Pain and Disabilities in Women-A Longitudinal Follow-up After a Rehabilitation Intervention.

Introduction: The aim was to evaluate if pain, disability, and work productivity are influenced by physical and psychosocial work exposures as well as by stress, up to 1 year after a randomized controlled trial treatment intervention, and to determine whether any such association differed between treatment and control groups. Methods: Ninety-seven working women suffering non-specific neck pain (n = 67 treatment group, n = 30 control group) were followed from end of treatment intervention and at 9- and 15-month follow-ups, respectively. Physical and psychosocial exposures, as well as perceived stress, were assessed after the treatment intervention. Pain, neck disability, and work productivity were assessed at baseline, after intervention 3 months later and at 9- and 15-month follow-ups. Longitudinal assessment was conducted using the exposure level at 3 months as predictor of pain, disability, and work productivity at 3, 9, and 15 months, respectively. Mixed models were used to estimate longitudinal associations, accounting for within-individual correlation of repeated outcome measures by incorporation of a random intercept. Age and duration of neck pain were adjusted for in all models. To evaluate group differences, interactions between exposures and treatment groups were estimated. Results: High perceived stress was associated with more neck pain, more neck disability, and decreased work productivity in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. High 'control of decision' was associated with less neck pain, less neck disability, and higher work productivity in cross-sectional analyses but only to less disability and higher productivity in longitudinal analyses. Shoulder/arm load was the only physical exposure variable that was significantly associated with work productivity in the univariate analyses. Only small differences were observed between treatment and control groups. Conclusion: High perceived stress and low 'control of decision' were associated with more neck pain, increased neck disability, and decreased work productivity. Treatment interventions for individuals with neck pain should take into account psychosocial workplace exposures and stress to improve intermediate and long-term results.

Direction-Specific Impairments in Cervical Range of Motion in Women with Chronic Neck Pain: Influence of Head Posture and Gravitationally Induced Torque.

BACKGROUND: Cervical range of motion (ROM) is commonly assessed in clinical practice and research. In a previous study we decomposed active cervical sagittal ROM into contributions from lower and upper levels of the cervical spine and found level- and direction-specific impairments in women with chronic non-specific neck pain. The present study aimed to validate these results and investigate if the specific impairments can be explained by the neutral posture (defining zero flexion/extension) or a movement strategy to avoid large gravitationally induced torques on the cervical spine. METHODS: Kinematics of the head and thorax was assessed in sitting during maximal sagittal cervical flexion/extension (high torque condition) and maximal protraction (low torque condition) in 120 women with chronic non-specific neck pain and 40 controls. We derived the lower and upper cervical angles, and the head centre of mass (HCM), from a 3-segment kinematic model. Neutral head posture was assessed using a standardized procedure. FINDINGS: Previous findings of level- and direction-specific impairments in neck pain were confirmed. Neutral head posture was equal between groups and did not explain the direction-specific impairments. The relative magnitude of group difference in HCM migration did not differ between high and low torques conditions, lending no support for our hypothesis that impairments in sagittal ROM are due to torque avoidance behaviour. INTERPRETATION: The direction- and level-specific impairments in cervical sagittal ROM can be generalised to the population of women with non-specific neck pain. Further research is necessary to clarify if torque avoidance behaviour can explain the impairments.

Is tailored treatment superior to non-tailored treatment for pain and disability in women with non-specific neck pain? A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for the effect of treatments of neck pain is modest. In the absence of causal treatments, a possibility is to tailor the treatment to the individuals' functional limitations and symptoms. The aim was to evaluate treatment effects of a tailored treatment versus a non-tailored treatment. Our hypothesis was that tailored treatment (TT) would have better effect on pain intensity and disability than either non-tailored treatment (NTT) (same treatment components but applied quasi-randomly) or treatment-as-usual (TAU) (no treatment from the study, no restrictions). We further hypothesized that TT and NTT would both have better effect than TAU. METHOD: One hundred twenty working women with subacute and chronic non-specific neck pain were allocated to 11 weeks of either TT, NTT or TAU in a randomized controlled trial with follow-ups at 3, 9 and 15 months. The TT was designed from a decision model based on assessment of function and symptoms with defined cut-off levels for the following categories: reduced cervical mobility, impaired neck-shoulder strength and motor control, impaired eye-head-neck control, trapezius myalgia and cervicogenic headache. Primary outcomes were pain and disability. Secondary outcomes were symptoms, general improvement, work productivity, and pressure pain threshold of m. trapezius. RESULTS: Linear mixed models analysis showed no differences between TT and NTT besides work productivity favoring TT at 9- and 15-months follow-ups. TT and NTT improved significantly more than TAU on pain, disability and symptoms at 3-month follow-up. General improvement also favored TT and NTT over TAU at all follow-ups. CONCLUSION: Tailored treatment according to our proposed decision model was not more effective than non-tailored treatment in women with subacute and chronic neck pain. Both tailored and non-tailored treatments had better short-term effects than treatment-as-usual, supporting active and specific exercise therapy, although therapist-patient interaction was not controlled for. Better understanding of the importance of functional impairments for pain and disability, in combination with a more precise tailoring of specific treatment components, is needed to progress. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 49348025. Registered 2 August 2011.

Effects of tailored neck-shoulder pain treatment based on a decision model guided by clinical assessments and standardized functional tests. A study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A major problem with rehabilitation interventions for neck pain is that the condition may have multiple causes, thus a single treatment approach is seldom efficient. The present study protocol outlines a single blinded randomised controlled trial evaluating the effect of tailored treatment for neck-shoulder pain. The treatment is based on a decision model guided by standardized clinical assessment and functional tests with cut-off values. Our main hypothesis is that the tailored treatment has better short, intermediate and long-term effects than either non-tailored treatment or treatment-as-usual (TAU) on pain and function. We sub-sequentially hypothesize that tailored and non-tailored treatment both have better effect than TAU. METHODS/DESIGN: 120 working women with minimum six weeks of nonspecific neck-shoulder pain aged 20-65, are allocated by minimisation with the factors age, duration of pain, pain intensity and disability in to the groups tailored treatment (T), non-tailored treatment (NT) or treatment-as-usual (TAU). Treatment is given to the groups T and NT for 11 weeks (27 sessions evenly distributed). An extensive presentation of the tests and treatment decision model is provided. The main treatment components are manual therapy, cranio-cervical flexion exercise and strength training, EMG-biofeedback training, treatment for cervicogenic headache, neck motor control training. A decision algorithm based on the baseline assessment determines the treatment components given to each participant of T- and NT-groups. Primary outcome measures are physical functioning (Neck Disability Index) and average pain intensity last week (Numeric Rating Scale). Secondary outcomes are general improvement (Patient Global Impression of Change scale), symptoms (Profile Fitness Mapping neck questionnaire), capacity to work in the last 6 weeks (quality and quantity) and pressure pain threshold of m. trapezius. Primary and secondary outcomes will be reported for each group with effect size and its precision. DISCUSSION: We have chosen not to include women with psychological ill-health and focus on biomedical aspects of neck pain. Future studies should aim at including psychosocial aspects in a widened treatment decision model. No important adverse events or side-effects are expected.