Are workplace health promotion programs effective at improving presenteeism in workers? a systematic review and best evidence synthesis of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p><it>Presenteeism </it>is highly prevalent and costly to employers. It is defined as being present at work, but limited in some aspect of job performance by a health problem.</p> <p>Workplace health promotion (WHP) is a common strategy used to enhance on-the-job productivity. The primary objective is to determine if WHP programs are effective in improving presenteeism. The secondary objectives are to identify characteristics of successful programs and potential risk factors for presenteeism.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Cochrane Library, Medline, and other electronic databases were searched from 1990 to 2010. Reference lists were examined, key journals were hand-searched and experts were contacted. Included studies were original research that contained data on at least 20 participants (≥ 18 years of age), and examined the impacts of WHP programs implemented at the workplace. The <it>Effective Public Health Practice Project Tool for Quantitative Studies </it>was used to rate studies. 'Strong' and 'moderate' studies were abstracted into evidence tables, and a best evidence synthesis was performed. Interventions were deemed successful if they improved the outcome of interest. Their program components were identified, as were possible risk factors contributing to presenteeism.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After 2,032 titles and abstracts were screened, 47 articles were reviewed, and 14 were accepted (4 strong and 10 moderate studies). These studies contained preliminary evidence for a positive effect of some WHP programs. Successful programs offered organizational leadership, health risk screening, individually tailored programs, and a supportive workplace culture. Potential risk factors contributing to presenteeism included being overweight, a poor diet, a lack of exercise, high stress, and poor relations with co-workers and management. Limitations: This review is limited to English publications. A large number of reviewed studies (70%) were inadmissible due to issues of bias, thus limiting the amount of primary evidence. The uncertainties surrounding presenteeism measurement is of significant concern as a source of bias.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The presenteeism literature is young and heterogeneous. There is preliminary evidence that some WHP programs can positively affect presenteeism and that certain risk factors are of importance. Future research would benefit from standard presenteeism metrics and studies conducted across a broad range of workplace settings.</p

Improving Rehabilitation Research to Optimize Care and Outcomes for People with Chronic Primary Low Back Pain: Methodological and Reporting Recommendations from a WHO Systematic Review Series

Chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) is a prevalent and disabling condition that often requires rehabilitation interventions to improve function and alleviate pain. This paper aims to advance future research, including systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), on CPLBP management. We provide methodological and reporting recommendations derived from our conducted systematic reviews, offering practical guidance for conducting robust research on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for CPLBP. Our systematic reviews contributed to the development of a WHO clinical guideline for CPLBP. Based on our experience, we have identified methodological issues and recommendations, which are compiled in a comprehensive table and discussed systematically within established frameworks for reporting and critically appraising RCTs. In conclusion, embracing the complexity of CPLBP involves recognizing its multifactorial nature and diverse contexts and planning for varying treatment responses. By embracing this complexity and emphasizing methodological rigor, research in the field can be improved, potentially leading to better care and outcomes for individuals with CPLBP

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Structured Exercise Programs for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults

PURPOSE Evaluate benefits and harms of structured exercise programs for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. METHODS We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in electronic databases (inception to 17 May 2022). Eligible RCTs targeted structured exercise programs compared to placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (including comparison interventions where the attributable effect of exercise could be isolated). We extracted outcomes, appraised risk of bias, conducted meta-analyses where appropriate, and assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS We screened 2503 records (after initial screening through Cochrane RCT Classifier and Cochrane Crowd) and 398 full text RCTs. Thirteen RCTs rated with overall low or unclear risk of bias were synthesized. Assessing individual exercise types (predominantly very low certainty evidence), pain reduction was associated with aerobic exercise and Pilates vs. no intervention, and motor control exercise vs. sham. Improved function was associated with mixed exercise vs. usual care, and Pilates vs. no intervention. Temporary increased minor pain was associated with mixed exercise vs. no intervention, and yoga vs. usual care. Little to no difference was found for other comparisons and outcomes. When pooling exercise types, exercise vs. no intervention probably reduces pain in adults (8 RCTs, SMD = - 0.33, 95% CI - 0.58 to - 0.08) and functional limitations in adults and older adults (8 RCTs, SMD = - 0.31, 95% CI - 0.57 to - 0.05) (moderate certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS With moderate certainty, structured exercise programs probably reduce pain and functional limitations in adults and older people with CPLBP

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Needling Therapies for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults

PURPOSE Evaluate benefits and harms of needling therapies (NT) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. METHODS Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing NT compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (comparing interventions where the attributable effect could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses where indicated and graded the certainty of evidence. RESULTS We screened 1831 citations and 109 full text RCTs, yeilding 37 RCTs. The certainty of evidence was low or very low across all included outcomes. There was little or no difference between NT and comparisons across most outcomes; there may be some benefits for certain outcomes. Compared with sham, NT improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (physical) (2 RCTs; SMD = 0.20, 95%CI 0.07; 0.32) at 6 months. Compared with no intervention, NT reduced pain at 2 weeks (21 RCTs; MD = - 1.21, 95%CI - 1.50; - 0.92) and 3 months (9 RCTs; MD = - 1.56, 95%CI - 2.80; - 0.95); and reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (19 RCTs; SMD = - 1.39, 95%CI - 2.00; - 0.77) and 3 months (8 RCTs; SMD = - 0.57, 95%CI - 0.92; - 0.22). In older adults, NT reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (SMD = - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.71; - 0.48) and 3 months (SMD = - 1.04, 95%CI - 1.66; - 0.43). Compared with usual care, NT reduced pain (MD = - 1.35, 95%CI - 1.86; - 0.84) and functional limitations (MD = - 2.55, 95%CI - 3.70; - 1.40) at 3 months. CONCLUSION Based on low to very low certainty evidence, adults with CPLBP experienced some benefits in pain, functioning, or HRQoL with NT; however, evidence showed little to no differences for other outcomes

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults

PURPOSE: To evaluate benefits and harms of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from various electronic databases from July 1, 2007 to March 9, 2022. Eligible RCTs targeted TENS compared to placebo/sham, usual care, no intervention, or interventions with isolated TENS effects (i.e., combined TENS with treatment B versus treatment B alone) in adults with CPLBP. We extracted outcomes requested by the WHO Guideline Development Group, appraised the risk of bias, conducted meta-analyses where appropriate, and graded the certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs (adults, n = 1027; adults ≥ 60 years, n = 28) out of 2010 records and 89 full text RCTs screened were included. The evidence suggested that TENS resulted in a marginal reduction in pain compared to sham (9 RCTs) in the immediate term (2 weeks) (mean difference (MD) = -0.90, 95% confidence interval  -1.54 to -0.26), and a reduction in pain catastrophizing in the short term (3 months) with TENS versus no intervention or interventions with TENS specific effects (1 RCT) (MD = -11.20, 95% CI -17.88 to -3.52). For other outcomes, little or no difference was found between TENS and the comparison interventions. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low certainty evidence, TENS resulted in brief and marginal reductions in pain (not deemed clinically important) and a short-term reduction in pain catastrophizing in adults with CPLBP, while little to no differences were found for other outcomes

A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. MAIN BODY: We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. CONCLUSION: In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system

Summary of the findings of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis

Abstract In 2004, the WHO Collaborating Centre for Neurotrauma, Prevention, Management and Rehabilitation Task Force published the first large systematic review and best evidence synthesis on the clinical course and prognosis for recovery after MTBI. Ten years later, the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis (ICoMP) formed to update the original WHO Task Force results. This summary review highlights important clinical findings from the full ICoMP results including the current evidence on the course and prognosis of recovery after MTBI in diverse patient populations (e.g., adults, athletes and children) and injury environments (e.g., motor vehicle collisions) as well as on the risk of long-term outcomes after MTBI, such as Parkinsons disease and dementia. Additional clinical areas of interest in MTBI are also discussed including the similarities between MTBI and other traumatic injuries and the risk of Second Impact Syndrome after sport concussion. Clinicians can use this information to help inform patients on the likely course of recovery after MTBI/concussion and guide better decision-making in the care of these patients

A conceptual framework for prognostic research

Abstract Background Prognostic research has many important purposes, including (i) describing the natural history and clinical course of health conditions, (ii) investigating variables associated with health outcomes of interest, (iii) estimating an individual’s probability of developing different outcomes, (iv) investigating the clinical application of prediction models, and (v) investigating determinants of recovery that can inform the development of interventions to improve patient outcomes. But much prognostic research has been poorly conducted and interpreted, indicating that a number of conceptual areas are often misunderstood. Recent initiatives to improve this include the Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) and the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Statement. In this paper, we aim to show how different categories of prognostic research relate to each other, to differentiate exploratory and confirmatory studies, discuss moderators and mediators, and to show how important it is to understand study designs and the differences between prediction and causation. Main text We propose that there are four main objectives of prognostic studies – description, association, prediction and causation. By causation, we mean the effect of prediction and decision rules on outcomes as determined by intervention studies and the investigation of whether a prognostic factor is a determinant of outcome (on the causal pathway). These either fall under the umbrella of exploratory (description, association, and prediction model development) or confirmatory (prediction model external validation and investigation of causation). Including considerations of causation within a prognostic framework provides a more comprehensive roadmap of how different types of studies conceptually relate to each other, and better clarity about appropriate model performance measures and the inferences that can be drawn from different types of prognostic studies. We also propose definitions of ‘candidate prognostic factors’, ‘prognostic factors’, ‘prognostic determinants (causal)’ and ‘prognostic markers (non-causal)’. Furthermore, we address common conceptual misunderstandings related to study design, analysis, and interpretation of multivariable models from the perspectives of association, prediction and causation. Conclusion This paper uses a framework to clarify some concepts in prognostic research that remain poorly understood and implemented, to stimulate discussion about how prognostic studies can be strengthened and appropriately interpreted