Brief intervention, physical exercise and cognitive behavioural group therapy for patients with chronic low back pain (The CINS trial).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Cognitive-behavioural treatments (CBT) and physical group exercise (PE) have both shown promising effects in reducing disability and increasing work participation among chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients. A brief cognitive intervention (BI) has previously been demonstrated to reduce work disability in CLBP. The aim of this study was to test if the effect of BI could be further increased by adding either group CBT or group PE. METHODS: A total of 214 patients, all sick listed 2-10 months due to CLBP, were randomized to BI (n = 99), BI + group CBT (n = 55) or BI + group PE (n = 60). Primary outcome was increased work participation at 12 months, whereas secondary outcomes included pain-related disability, subjective health complaints, anxiety, depression, coping and fear avoidance. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups in work participation at 12 months follow-up (χ2  = 1.15, p = 0.56). No significant differences were found on the secondary outcomes either, except for a statistically significant reduction (time by group) in pseudoneurology one domain of subjective health complaints (sleep problems, tiredness, dizziness, anxiety, depression, palpitation, heat flushes) (F2,136  = 3.109, p = 0.048) and anxiety (F2,143  = 4.899, p = 0.009) for the groups BI + group CBT and BI + group PE, compared to BI alone. However, these differences were not significant in post hoc analyses (Scheffé adjusted). CONCLUSION: There was no support for an effect of the added group CBT or group PE treatments to a brief cognitive intervention in this study of patients on sick leave due to low back pain. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study demonstrates that treatments that previously were found to be effective and are included in most treatment guidelines, such as group cognitive-behavior therapy and exercise, were not effective in this given context compared to a brief, cognitive intervention. This implies that an optimized brief intervention is difficult to outperform in patients on sick leave due to low back pain.

Subjective health complaints, work-related stress and self-efficacy in Norwegian aircrew.

BACKGROUND: The European civilian aviation industry has undergone major changes in the last decade. Despite this, there is little knowledge about work-related stress and subjective health complaints (SHCs) affecting Norwegian aircrew. AIMS: To investigate the relationships between work-related stress, self-efficacy and SHCs in commercial aircrew in Norway and to explore differences between cockpit and cabin crew. METHODS: Aircrew members from the three major airlines operating from Norway completed an electronically distributed questionnaire. Linear regression analyses were used to investigate the association between work-related stress, self-efficacy and SHCs. RESULTS: There was a 21% response rate. Among the 843 study subjects, tiredness, sleep problems, bloating, low back pain, headaches and neck pain were the most prevalent SHCs. Cabin crew reported significantly higher numbers, prevalences and mean values for all SHCs compared with cockpit crew (P < 0.05). In total, 20% reported high stress levels. High levels of work-related stress were significantly associated with all SHC factors in both groups. Self-efficacy partly moderated the relationship between stress and psychological complaints in both cockpit and cabin crew, and for musculoskeletal complaints in cockpit crew. The model explained 23 and 32% of the variance in psychological complaints for cockpit and cabin crew, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Commercial aircrew in Norway reported high numbers of SHCs, and high levels of work-related stress were associated with high numbers of SHC. More knowledge is needed on the physical, organizational and psychosocial stressors affecting cockpit and cabin crew in order to create a healthier work environment for these groups.

Impact of organizational policies and practices on workplace injuries in a hospital setting.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess relationships between perceptions of organizational practices and policies (OPP), social support, and injury rates among workers in hospital units. METHODS: A total of 1230 hospital workers provided survey data on OPP, job flexibility, and social support. Demographic data and unit injury rates were collected from the hospitals' administrative databases. RESULTS: Injury rates were lower in units where workers reported higher OPP scores and high social support. These relationships were mainly observed among registered nurses. Registered nurses perceived coworker support and OPP as less satisfactory than patient care associates (PCAs). Nevertheless, because of the low number of PCAs at each unit, results for the PCAs are preliminary and should be further researched in future studies with larger sample sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Employers aiming to reduce injuries in hospitals could focus on good OPP and supportive work environment.

Systematic review of active workplace interventions to reduce sickness absence.

BACKGROUND: The workplace is used as a setting for interventions to prevent and reduce sickness absence, regardless of the specific medical conditions and diagnoses. AIMS: To give an overview of the general effectiveness of active workplace interventions aimed at preventing and reducing sickness absence. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Psych-info, and ISI web of knowledge on 27 December 2011. Inclusion criteria were (i) participants over 18 years old with an active role in the intervention, (ii) intervention done partly or fully at the workplace or at the initiative of the workplace and (iii) sickness absence reported. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A narrative synthesis was used. RESULTS: We identified 2036 articles of which, 93 were assessed in full text. Seventeen articles were included (2 with low and 15 with medium risk of bias), with a total of 24 comparisons. Five interventions from four articles significantly reduced sickness absence. We found moderate evidence that graded activity reduced sickness absence and limited evidence that the Sheerbrooke model (a comprehensive multidisciplinary intervention) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) reduced sickness absence. There was moderate evidence that workplace education and physical exercise did not reduce sickness absence. For other interventions, the evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The review found limited evidence that active workplace interventions were not generally effective in reducing sickness absence, but there was moderate evidence of effect for graded activity and limited evidence for the effectiveness of the Sheerbrooke model and CBT.

Systematic review of back schools, brief education, and fear-avoidance training for chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Seven previous systematic reviews (SRs) have evaluated back schools, and one has evaluated brief education, with the latest SR including studies until November 2004. The effectiveness of fear-avoidance training has not been assessed. PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of back schools, brief education, and fear-avoidance training for chronic low back pain (CLBP). STUDY DESIGN: A SR. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE database of randomized controlled trials (RCT) until August 2006 for relevant trials reported in English. Assessment of effectiveness was based on pain, disability, and sick leave. RCTs that reported back schools, or brief education as the main intervention, were included. For fear-avoidance training, evaluation of domain-specific outcome was required. Two reviewers independently reviewed the studies. RESULTS: Eight RCTs including 1,002 patients evaluated back schools, three studies were of high quality. We found conflicting evidence for back schools compared with waiting list, placebo, usual care, and exercises, and a cognitive behavioral back school. Twelve trials including 3,583 patients evaluated brief education. Seven trials, six of high quality, evaluated brief education in the clinical setting. We found strong evidence of effectiveness on sick leave and short-term disability compared with usual care. We found conflicting or limited evidence for back book or Internet discussion (five trials, two of high quality) compared with waiting list, no intervention, massage, yoga, or exercises. Three RCTs of high quality, including 364 patients, evaluated fear-avoidance training. We found moderate evidence that there is no difference between rehabilitation including fear-avoidance training and spinal fusion. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent recommendations are given for brief education in the clinical setting, and fear-avoidance training should be considered as an alternative to spinal fusion, and back schools may be considered in the occupational setting. The discordance between reviews can be attributed differences in inclusion criteria and application of evidence rules.