BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is associated with enormous personal and societal burdens, especially when it reaches the chronic stage of the disorder (pain for a duration of more than three months). Indeed, individuals who reach the chronic stage tend to show a more persistent course, and they account for the majority of social and economic costs. As a result, there is increasing emphasis on the importance of intervening at the early stages of LBP.According to the biopsychosocial model, LBP is a condition best understood with reference to an interaction of physical, psychological, and social influences. This has led to the development of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) programs that target factors from the different domains, administered by healthcare professionals from different backgrounds.This review is an update of a Cochrane Review on MBR for subacute LBP, which was published in 2003. It is part of a series of reviews on MBR for musculoskeletal pain published by the Cochrane Back and Neck Group and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of MBR for subacute LBP (pain for a duration of six to 12 weeks) among adults, with a focus on pain, back-specific disability, and work status.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched for relevant trials in any language by a computer-aided search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and two trials registers. Our search is current to 13 July 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with subacute LBP. We included studies that investigated a MBR program compared to any type of control intervention. We defined MBR as an intervention that included a physical component (e.g. pharmacological, physical therapy) in combination with either a psychological, social, or occupational component (or any combination of these). We also required involvement of healthcare professionals from at least two different clinical backgrounds with appropriate training to deliver the component for which they were responsible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. In particular, the data extraction and 'risk of bias' assessment were conducted by two people, independently. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias and the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of nine RCTs (981 participants) in this review. Five studies were conducted in Europe and four in North America. Sample sizes ranged from 33 to 351. The mean age across trials ranged between 32.0 and 43.7 years.All included studies were judged as having high risk of performance bias and high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding, and four of the nine studies suffered from at least one additional source of possible bias.In MBR compared to usual care for subacute LBP, individuals receiving MBR had less pain (four studies with 336 participants; SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.21, moderate-quality of evidence due to risk of bias) and less disability (three studies with 240 participants; SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.01, low-quality of evidence due to risk of bias and inconsistency), as well as increased likelihood of return-to-work (three studies with 170 participants; OR 3.19, 95% CI 1.46 to 6.98, very low-quality of evidence due to serious risk of bias and imprecision) and fewer sick leave days (two studies with 210 participants; SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.66 to -0.10, low-quality of evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision) at 12-month follow-up. The effect sizes for pain and disability were low in terms of clinical meaningfulness, whereas effects for work-related outcomes were in the moderate range.However, when comparing MBR to other treatments (i.e. brief intervention with features from a light mobilization program and a graded activity program, functional restoration, brief clinical intervention including education and advice on exercise, and psychological counselling), we found no differences between the groups in terms of pain (two studies with 336 participants; SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.07, low-quality evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias), functional disability (two studies with 345 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.18, low-quality evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias), and time away from work (two studies with 158 participants; SMD -0.25 95% CI -0.98 to 0.47, very low-quality evidence due to serious imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias). Return-to-work was not reported in any of the studies.Although we looked for adverse events in both comparisons, none of the included studies reported this outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On average, people with subacute LBP who receive MBR will do better than if they receive usual care, but it is not clear whether they do better than people who receive some other type of treatment. However, the available research provides mainly low to very low-quality evidence, thus additional high-quality trials are needed before we can describe the value of MBP for clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Work disability has serious consequences for individuals as well as society. It is possible to facilitate resumption of work by reducing barriers to return to work (RTW) and promoting collaboration with key stakeholders. This review was first published in 2009 and has now been updated to include studies published up to February 2015.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of workplace interventions in preventing work disability among sick-listed workers, when compared to usual care or clinical interventions.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Work Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases on 2 February 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of workplace interventions that aimed to improve RTW for disabled workers. We only included studies where RTW or conversely sickness absence was reported as a continuous outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the studies. We performed meta-analysis where possible, and we assessed the quality of evidence according to GRADE criteria. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs with 1897 workers. Eight studies included workers with musculoskeletal disorders, five workers with mental health problems, and one workers with cancer. We judged six studies to have low risk of bias for the outcome sickness absence.Workplace interventions significantly improved time until first RTW compared to usual care, moderate-quality evidence (hazard ratio (HR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 2.01). Workplace interventions did not considerably reduce time to lasting RTW compared to usual care, very low-quality evidence (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.57). The effect on cumulative duration of sickness absence showed a mean difference of -33.33 (95% CI -49.54 to -17.12), favouring the workplace intervention, high-quality evidence. One study assessed recurrences of sick leave, and favoured usual care, moderate-quality evidence (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.82). Overall, the effectiveness of workplace interventions on work disability showed varying results.In subgroup analyses, we found that workplace interventions reduced time to first and lasting RTW among workers with musculoskeletal disorders more than usual care (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.82 and HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.29, respectively; both moderate-quality evidence). In studies of workers with musculoskeletal disorders, pain also improved (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.26, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.06), as well as functional status (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.08). In studies of workers with mental health problems, there was a significant improvement in time until first RTW (HR 2.64, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.95), but no considerable reduction in lasting RTW (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.17). One study of workers with cancer did not find a considerable reduction in lasting RTW (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.47).In another subgroup analysis, we did not find evidence that offering a workplace intervention in combination with a cognitive behavioural intervention (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.93) is considerably more effective than offering a workplace intervention alone (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.82, test for subgroup differences P = 0.17).Workplace interventions did not considerably reduce time until first RTW compared with a clinical intervention in workers with mental health problems in one study (HR 2.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.95, very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence that workplace interventions reduce time to first RTW, high-quality evidence that workplace interventions reduce cumulative duration of sickness absence, very low-quality evidence that workplace interventions reduce time to lasting RTW, and moderate-quality evidence that workplace interventions increase recurrences of sick leave. Overall, the effectiveness of workplace interventions on work disability showed varying results. Workplace interventions reduce time to RTW and improve pain and functional status in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of a considerable effect of workplace interventions on time to RTW in workers with mental health problems or cancer.We found moderate-quality evidence to support workplace interventions for workers with musculoskeletal disorders. The quality of the evidence on the effectiveness of workplace interventions for workers with mental health problems and cancer is low, and results do not show an effect of workplace interventions for these workers. Future research should expand the range of health conditions evaluated with high-quality studies.
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.
BACKGROUND: Physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy aims to improve work status for workers on sick leave due to back pain. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review (originally titled 'Work conditioning, work hardening and functional restoration for workers with back and neck pain') first published in 2003, updated in 2010, and updated again in 2013.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy in reducing time lost from work and improving work status for workers with back pain. Further, to assess which aspects of physical conditioning are related to a faster return to work for workers with back pain.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to March 2012: CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1966), EMBASE (from 1980), CINAHL (from 1982), PsycINFO (from 1967), and PEDro.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs that studied workers with work disability related to back pain and who were included in physical conditioning programmes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 articles reporting on 25 RCTs with 4404 participants. Risk of bias was low in 16 studies.
Three studies involved workers with acute back pain, eight studies workers with subacute back pain, and 14 studies workers with chronic back pain.
In 14 studies, physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy was compared to usual care. The physical conditioning mostly consisted of graded activity with work-related exercises aimed at increasing back strength and flexibility, together with a set date for return to work. The programmes were divided into a light version with a maximum of five sessions, or an intense version with more than five sessions up to full time or as inpatient treatment.
For acute back pain, there was low quality evidence that both light and intense physical conditioning programmes made little or no difference in sickness absence duration compared with care as usual at three to 12 months follow-up (3 studies with 340 workers).
For subacute back pain, the evidence on the effectiveness of intense physical conditioning combined with care as usual compared to usual care alone was conflicting (four studies with 395 workers). However, subgroup analysis showed low quality evidence that if the intervention was executed at the workplace, or included a workplace visit, it may have reduced sickness absence duration at 12 months follow-up (3 studies with 283 workers; SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.18).
For chronic back pain, there was low quality evidence that physical conditioning as part of integrated care management in addition to usual care may have reduced sickness absence days compared to usual care at 12 months follow-up (1 study, 134 workers; SMD -4.42, 95% CI -5.06 to -3.79). What part of the integrated care management was most effective remained unclear. There was moderate quality evidence that intense physical conditioning probably reduced sickness absence duration only slightly compared with usual care at 12 months follow-up (5 studies, 1093 workers; SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.03).
Physical conditioning compared to exercise therapy showed conflicting results for workers with subacute and chronic back pain. Cognitive behavioural therapy was probably not superior to physical conditioning as an alternative or in addition to physical conditioning.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy in reducing sick leave for workers with back pain, compared to usual care or exercise therapy, remains uncertain. For workers with acute back pain, physical conditioning may have no effect on sickness absence duration. There is conflicting evidence regarding the reduction of sickness absence duration with intense physical conditioning versus usual care for workers with subacute back pain. It may be that including workplace visits or execution of the intervention at the workplace is the component that renders a physical conditioning programme effective. For workers with chronic back pain physical conditioning has a small effect on reducing sick leave compared to care as usual after 12 months follow-up. To what extent physical conditioning as part of integrated care management may alter the effect on sick leave for workers with chronic back pain needs further research.
OBJECTIVE: Strategies for the restoration of function and job performance in workers with musculoskeletal disorders have changed considerably since industrial rehabilitation became a distinct specialization in the 1980s. A rich body of research concerning approaches to medical and rehabilitative management of these disorders exists, resulting in a large number of hybrid approaches worldwide.
METHODS: This integrative review examined the evidence base for best practices in the rehabilitation of acute musculoskeletal workplace injuries, and also mapped the evolution of approaches over the past thirty years. Contextual factors that may have contributed to change were assessed through analysis of changing practice trends and review of descriptive literature over time.
RESULTS: A clear movement away from simplistic, unidimensional approaches towards comprehensive workplace interventions is evident. Economic concerns and growing government and insurance regulation of workplace safety and injury management were the likely drivers of change. While the contributions of various elements of disability management in the workplace were examined, many features of onsite interventions remain to be examined.
CONCLUSIONS: A strong body of research has produced notable advances in management of acute musculoskeletal workplace injury. Research concerning the delivery of workplace-based interventions, the role of workplace environment factors and a range of worker outcomes will further advance knowledge in this field.
INTRODUCTION: A systematic review was conducted to review the effectiveness of workplace-based return-to-work (RTW) interventions. METHOD: Seven databases were searched, in English and French, between January 1990 and December 2003 for peer-reviewed studies of RTW interventions provided at the workplace to workers with work disability associated with musculoskeletal or other pain-related conditions. Methodological quality appraisal and data extraction were conducted by pairs of reviewers. RESULTS: Of a total of 4124 papers identified by the search, 10 studies were of sufficient quality to be included in the review. There was strong evidence that work disability duration is significantly reduced by work accommodation offers and contact between healthcare provider and workplace; and moderate evidence that it is reduced by interventions which include early contact with worker by workplace, ergonomic work site visits, and presence of a RTW coordinator. For these five intervention components, there was moderate evidence that they reduce costs associated with work disability duration. Evidence for sustainability of these effects was insufficient or limited. Evidence regarding the impact of supernumerary replacements was insufficient. Evidence levels regarding the impact of the intervention components on quality-of-life was insufficient or mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review provides the evidence base supporting that workplace-based RTW interventions can reduce work disability duration and associated costs, however the evidence regarding their impact on quality-of-life outcomes was much weaker.
Low back pain (LBP) is associated with enormous personal and societal burdens, especially when it reaches the chronic stage of the disorder (pain for a duration of more than three months). Indeed, individuals who reach the chronic stage tend to show a more persistent course, and they account for the majority of social and economic costs. As a result, there is increasing emphasis on the importance of intervening at the early stages of LBP.According to the biopsychosocial model, LBP is a condition best understood with reference to an interaction of physical, psychological, and social influences. This has led to the development of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) programs that target factors from the different domains, administered by healthcare professionals from different backgrounds.This review is an update of a Cochrane Review on MBR for subacute LBP, which was published in 2003. It is part of a series of reviews on MBR for musculoskeletal pain published by the Cochrane Back and Neck Group and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group.
OBJECTIVES:
To examine the effectiveness of MBR for subacute LBP (pain for a duration of six to 12 weeks) among adults, with a focus on pain, back-specific disability, and work status.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched for relevant trials in any language by a computer-aided search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and two trials registers. Our search is current to 13 July 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with subacute LBP. We included studies that investigated a MBR program compared to any type of control intervention. We defined MBR as an intervention that included a physical component (e.g. pharmacological, physical therapy) in combination with either a psychological, social, or occupational component (or any combination of these). We also required involvement of healthcare professionals from at least two different clinical backgrounds with appropriate training to deliver the component for which they were responsible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. In particular, the data extraction and 'risk of bias' assessment were conducted by two people, independently. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias and the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included a total of nine RCTs (981 participants) in this review. Five studies were conducted in Europe and four in North America. Sample sizes ranged from 33 to 351. The mean age across trials ranged between 32.0 and 43.7 years.All included studies were judged as having high risk of performance bias and high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding, and four of the nine studies suffered from at least one additional source of possible bias.In MBR compared to usual care for subacute LBP, individuals receiving MBR had less pain (four studies with 336 participants; SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.21, moderate-quality of evidence due to risk of bias) and less disability (three studies with 240 participants; SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.01, low-quality of evidence due to risk of bias and inconsistency), as well as increased likelihood of return-to-work (three studies with 170 participants; OR 3.19, 95% CI 1.46 to 6.98, very low-quality of evidence due to serious risk of bias and imprecision) and fewer sick leave days (two studies with 210 participants; SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.66 to -0.10, low-quality of evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision) at 12-month follow-up. The effect sizes for pain and disability were low in terms of clinical meaningfulness, whereas effects for work-related outcomes were in the moderate range.However, when comparing MBR to other treatments (i.e. brief intervention with features from a light mobilization program and a graded activity program, functional restoration, brief clinical intervention including education and advice on exercise, and psychological counselling), we found no differences between the groups in terms of pain (two studies with 336 participants; SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.07, low-quality evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias), functional disability (two studies with 345 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.18, low-quality evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias), and time away from work (two studies with 158 participants; SMD -0.25 95% CI -0.98 to 0.47, very low-quality evidence due to serious imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias). Return-to-work was not reported in any of the studies.Although we looked for adverse events in both comparisons, none of the included studies reported this outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
On average, people with subacute LBP who receive MBR will do better than if they receive usual care, but it is not clear whether they do better than people who receive some other type of treatment. However, the available research provides mainly low to very low-quality evidence, thus additional high-quality trials are needed before we can describe the value of MBP for clinical practice.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
