Epidemiological Differences between Localized and Nonlocalized Low Back Pain

Study Design. A cross-sectional survey with a longitudinal follow-up. Objectives. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that pain, which is localized to the low back, differs epidemiologically from that which occurs simultaneously or close in time to pain at other anatomical sites Summary of Background Data. Low back pain (LBP) often occurs in combination with other regional pain, with which it shares similar psychological and psychosocial risk factors. However, few previous epidemiological studies of LBP have distinguished pain that is confined to the low back from that which occurs as part of a wider distribution of pain. Methods. We analyzed data from CUPID, a cohort study that used baseline and follow-up questionnaires to collect information about musculoskeletal pain, associated disability, and potential risk factors, in 47 occupational groups (office workers, nurses, and others) from 18 countries. Results. Among 12,197 subjects at baseline, 609 (4.9%) reported localized LBP in the past month, and 3820 (31.3%) nonlocalized LBP. Nonlocalized LBP was more frequently associated with sciatica in the past month (48.1% vs. 30.0% of cases), occurred on more days in the past month and past year, was more often disabling for everyday activities (64.1% vs. 47.3% of cases), and had more frequently led to medical consultation and sickness absence from work. It was also more often persistent when participants were followed up after a mean of 14 months (65.6% vs. 54.1% of cases). In adjusted Poisson regression analyses, nonlocalized LBP was differentially associated with risk factors, particularly female sex, older age, and somatizing tendency. There were also marked differences in the relative prevalence of localized and nonlocalized LBP by occupational group. Conclusion. Future epidemiological studies should distinguish where possible between pain that is limited to the low back and LBP that occurs in association with pain at other anatomical locations

Low back pain among office workers in three Spanish-speaking countries: findings from the CUPID study

Objectives: To assess the differences in the prevalence and incidence of low back pain (LBP) and associated disability among office workers in Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Spain.Methods: Data were collected at baseline (n=947, 93% response) in November 2007 and at follow-up after 12 months (n=853, 90% response). Six outcome measures were examined: baseline prevalence of (1) LBP in the past 12 months, (2) LBP in the past month and (3) disabling LBP in the past month; and at follow-up: (4) incidence of new LBP in the past month, (5) new disabling LBP and (6) persistent LBP. Differences in prevalence by country were characterised by ORs with 95% CIs, before and after adjustment for covariates.Results: Prevalence of LBP in the past month among office employees in Costa Rica (46.0%) and Nicaragua (44.2%) was higher than in Spain (33.6%). Incidence of new LBP was 37.0% in Nicaragua (OR=2.49; 95% CI 1.57 to 3.95), 14.9% in Costa Rica (OR=0.74; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.34) and 19.0% in Spain (reference). Incidence of new disabling LBP was higher in Nicaragua (17.2%; OR=2.49; 95% CI 1.43 to 4.34) and Costa Rica (13.6%; OR=1.89; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.48) than Spain (7.7%), while persistence of LBP was higher only in Nicaragua.Conclusions: Prevalence of LBP and disabling LBP was higher in Costa Rican and Nicaraguan office workers than in Spain, but the incidence was higher mainly in Nicaragua. Measured sociodemographic, job-related and health-related variables only partly explained the differences between countries, and further research is needed to explore reasons for the remaining differences

Drivers of international variation in prevalence of disabling low back pain: Findings from the cultural and psychosocial influences on disability study

BackgroundWide international variation in the prevalence of disabling low back pain (LBP) among working populations is not explained by known risk factors. It would be useful to know whether the drivers of this variation are specific to the spine or factors that predispose to musculoskeletal pain more generally.MethodsBaseline information about musculoskeletal pain and risk factors was elicited from 11 710 participants aged 20–59 years, who were sampled from 45 occupational groups in 18 countries. Wider propensity to pain was characterized by the number of anatomical sites outside the low back that had been painful in the 12 months before baseline (‘pain propensity index’). After a mean interval of 14 months, 9055 participants (77.3%) provided follow‐up data on disabling LBP in the past month. Baseline risk factors for disabling LBP at follow‐up were assessed by random intercept Poisson regression.ResultsAfter allowance for other known and suspected risk factors, pain propensity showed the strongest association with disabling LBP (prevalence rate ratios up to 2.6, 95% CI: 2.2–3.1; population attributable fraction 39.8%). Across the 45 occupational groups, the prevalence of disabling LBP varied sevenfold (much more than within‐country differences between nurses and office workers), and correlated with mean pain propensity index (r = 0.58).ConclusionsWithin our study, major international variation in the prevalence of disabling LBP appeared to be driven largely by factors predisposing to musculoskeletal pain at multiple anatomical sites rather than by risk factors specific to the spine.SignificanceOur findings indicate that differences in general propensity to musculoskeletal pain are a major driver of large international variation in the prevalence of disabling low back pain among people of working age

Disabling musculoskeletal pain in working populations: Is it the job, the person, or the culture?

To compare the prevalence of disabling low back pain (DLBP) and disabling wrist/hand pain (DWHP) among groups of workers carrying out similar physical activities in different cultural environments, and to explore explanations for observed differences, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in 18 countries. Standardised questionnaires were used to ascertain pain that interfered with everyday activities and exposure to possible risk factors in 12,426 participants from 47 occupational groups (mostly nurses and office workers). Associations with risk factors were assessed by Poisson regression. The 1-month prevalence of DLBP in nurses varied from 9.6% to 42.6%, and that of DWHP in office workers from 2.2% to 31.6%. Rates of disabling pain at the 2 anatomical sites covaried (r = 0.76), but DLBP tended to be relatively more common in nurses and DWHP in office workers. Established risk factors such as occupational physical activities, psychosocial aspects of work, and tendency to somatise were confirmed, and associations were found also with adverse health beliefs and group awareness of people outside work with musculoskeletal pain. However, after allowance for these risk factors, an up-to 8-fold difference in prevalence remained. Systems of compensation for work-related illness and financial support for health-related incapacity for work appeared to have little influence on the occurrence of symptoms. Our findings indicate large international variation in the prevalence of disabling forearm and back pain among occupational groups carrying out similar tasks, which is only partially explained by the personal and socioeconomic risk factors that were analysed