Return to work in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: multidisciplinary intervention versus brief intervention: a randomized clinical trial

Objective: This randomized clinical trial was performed to compare the effect of a new multidisciplinary intervention (MI) programme to a brief intervention (BI) programme on return to work (RTW), fully and partly, at a 12-month and 24-month follow-up in patients on long-term sick leave due to musculoskeletal pain. Methods: Patients (n = 284, mean age 41.3 years, 53.9 % women) who were sick-listed with musculoskeletal pain and referred to a specialist clinic in physical rehabilitation were randomized to MI (n = 141) or BI (n = 143). The MI included the use of a visual educational tool, which facilitated patienttherapist communication and self-management. The MI also applied one more profession, more therapist time and a comprehensive focus on the psychosocial factors, particularly the working conditions, compared to a BI. The main features of the latter are a thorough medical, educational examination, a brief cognitive assessment based on the non-injury model, and a recommendation to return to normal activity as soon as possible. Results: The number of patients with full-time RTW developed similarly in the two groups. The patients receiving MI had a higher probability to partly RTW during the first 7 months of the follow-up compared to the BI-group. Conclusions: There were no differences between the groups on full-time RTW during the 24 months. However, the results indicate that MI hastens the return to work process in long-term sick leave through the increased use of partial sick leave. Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov with the registration number NCT01346423.publishedVersio

Expectations, perceptions, and physiotherapy predict prolonged sick leave in subacute low back pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Brief intervention programs for subacute low back pain (LBP) result in significant reduction of sick leave compared to treatment as usual. Although effective, a substantial proportion of the patients do not return to work. This study investigates predictors of return to work in LBP patients participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing a brief intervention program (BI) with BI and physical exercise.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Predictors for not returning to work was examined in 246 patients sick listed 8-12 weeks for low back pain. The patients had participated in a randomized controlled trial, with BI (n = 122) and BI + physical exercise (n = 124). There were no significant differences between the two intervention groups on return to work. The groups were therefore merged in the analyses of predictors. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors for non return to work at 3, 12, and 24 months of follow-up.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At 3 months of follow-up, the strongest predictors for not returning to work were pain intensity while resting (OR = 5.6; CI = 1.7-19), the perception of constant back strain when working (OR = 4.1; CI = 1.5-12), negative expectations for return to work (OR = 4.2; CI = 1.7-10), and having been to a physiotherapist prior to participation in the trial (OR = 3.3; CI = 1.3-8.3). At 12 months, perceived reduced ability to walk far due to the complaints (OR = 2.6; CI = 1.3-5.4), pain during activities (OR = 2.4; CI = 1.1-5.1), and having been to a physiotherapist prior to participation in the trial (OR = 2.1; CI = 1.1-4.3) were the strongest predictors for non return to work. At 24 months age below 41 years (OR = 2.9; CI = 1.4-6.0) was the only significant predictor for non return to work.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>It appears that return to work is highly dependant on individual and cognitive factors. Patients not returning to work after the interventions were characterized by negative expectations, perceptions about pain and disability, and previous physiotherapy treatment. This is the first study reporting that previous treatment by physiotherapists is a risk factor for long-term sick leave. This has not been reported before and is an interesting finding that deserves more scrutiny.</p

Light mobilization treatment of subacute, non-spesific low back pain

Background: During the last decades there has been a major rise in sick leave due to low back pain, emphasising the need for interventions preventing chronicity and long term sick leave. Early intervention with information, advice, reassurance, and encouragement to stay active may be a cost-effective method for returning patients quickly to normal activity. Aims: 1) To study if an early intervention at a spine clinic with information, reassurance, and encouragement to stay active may reduce sick leave for subacute low back pain (sick listed 8- 12 weeks). 2) To evaluate short- and long-term clinical and cost-benefit effects. 3) To identify predictors and modifiers of treatment effect influencing sick leave. 4) To investigate if low back pain complaints are specific or part of a more general unspecific condition comparable to subjective health complaints in the normal population. Material and methods: 457 patients sick listed 8-12 weeks for low back pain with or without radiating pain and age between 18-60 years were included. The patients were randomised into an intervention group (n=237) and a control group (n=220). The intervention group was examined at a spine clinic by a treatment team consisting of a physician (specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation) and a physiotherapist. The main purpose of the intervention was to provide the patients with coping skills to manage their back pain through information for better understanding why the pain was not dangerous, and why activity was important despite the pain. The patients were given time to express their concerns and explain how the back problem affected their life and daily activities. They were given practical advice in how to resume normal activity, and they were encouraged to stay active. The control group was treated within the primary health care. All subjects filled out questionnaires. Data on sick leave, disability, and other social benefits were collected register data from the National Insurance Offices. Finally, the subjective health complaints scored by all the subjects in the study group at inclusion time were compared to reference values from a Norwegian normal population, consisting of 1240 adults. Results: The intervention program had significant effect in reducing sick leave. At 3-months follow up 51.9% of the patients in the intervention group had returned to full-duty work, as compared with 35.9% in the control group. At six months 61.2% in the intervention group vs 45% in the control group had returned to work, and at 12 months 68.4% in the intervention group vs 56.4% in the control group had returned to work. (Paper 1). Over the 3 years of observation, the intervention group had significantly fewer days of sickness compensation (average 125.7 d/person) than the control group (169.6 d/person). The difference was mainly caused by a more rapid return to work during the first year. The intervention had economic gains for the society. Net benefits accumulated over 3 years of treating the 237 patients in the intervention group amount to approximately NOK 6 049 649 ($ 828 719). (Paper 2). At three months follow up predictors for non-return to work, both subgroups (intervention and control group) combined, were other illnesses, the belief that work would aggravate the condition, pain when performing daily activities, and age below 41. The strongest modifying effect of the intervention on return to work was the perception of constant back strain when working and beliefs about reduced ability to work. At 12 months follow up predictors for nonreturn to work, both subgroups (intervention and control group) combined, were other illnesses, less than 12 years of education, low belief that back pain would disappear, and being a female. The strongest modifier for the effect of the intervention on return to work was gastrointestinal complaints. (Paper 3).Compared to the normal reference population, the low back pain patients had significantly more low back pain, neck pain, upper back pain, pain in the feet during exercise, headache, migraine, sleep problems, flushes/heat sensations, anxiety, and sadness/depression. The prevalence of pain in arms, pain in shoulders, and tiredness was also high, but not significantly higher than in the reference population. (Paper 4). Conclusion: Early intervention with examination, information, reassurance, and encouragement to engage in physical activity as normal as possible reduced sick leave for subacute low back pain and had economic gains for the society. The effect occurred during the first year after intervention. There was no increased risk for reoccurrence of sick leave due to low back pain over the next 2 years in patients returning early. The intervention was short and simple and seemed to have a main effect on work absenteeism via interacting with concerns of being unable to work. Patients suffering from low back pain also have other complaints, and these comorbid conditions may influence the prognosis, in particular the trust and ability to return to work. The intervention may have its main effect via the perception and interpretation of the condition, and the concerns underlying the decision to return to work

Return to work in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: multidisciplinary intervention versus brief intervention: a randomized clinical trial

Objective: This randomized clinical trial was performed to compare the effect of a new multidisciplinary intervention (MI) programme to a brief intervention (BI) programme on return to work (RTW), fully and partly, at a 12-month and 24-month follow-up in patients on long-term sick leave due to musculoskeletal pain. Methods: Patients (n = 284, mean age 41.3 years, 53.9 % women) who were sick-listed with musculoskeletal pain and referred to a specialist clinic in physical rehabilitation were randomized to MI (n = 141) or BI (n = 143). The MI included the use of a visual educational tool, which facilitated patienttherapist communication and self-management. The MI also applied one more profession, more therapist time and a comprehensive focus on the psychosocial factors, particularly the working conditions, compared to a BI. The main features of the latter are a thorough medical, educational examination, a brief cognitive assessment based on the non-injury model, and a recommendation to return to normal activity as soon as possible. Results: The number of patients with full-time RTW developed similarly in the two groups. The patients receiving MI had a higher probability to partly RTW during the first 7 months of the follow-up compared to the BI-group. Conclusions: There were no differences between the groups on full-time RTW during the 24 months. However, the results indicate that MI hastens the return to work process in long-term sick leave through the increased use of partial sick leave. Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov with the registration number NCT01346423

Cognitive Interventions and Nutritional Supplements (The CINS Trial): A Randomized Controlled, Multicenter Trial Comparing a Brief Intervention with Additional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Seal Oil, and Soy Oil for Sick-Listed Low Back Pain Patients

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a tailored and manualized cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) or nutritional supplements of seal oil and soy oil had any additional benefits over a brief cognitive intervention (BI) on return to work (RTW). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Brief intervention programs are clinically beneficial and cost-effective for patients with low back pain (LBP). CBT is recommended for LBP, but evidence on RTW is lacking. Seal oil has previously been shown to have a possible effect on muscle pain, but no randomized controlled trials have so far been carried out in LBP patients. METHODS: Four hundred thirteen adults aged 18 to 60 years were included. Participants were sick-listed 2 to 10 months due to LBP. Main outcome was objectively ascertained work participation at 12-month follow-up. Participants were randomly assigned to BI (n = 100), BI and CBT (n = 103), BI and seal oil (n = 105), or BI and soy oil (n = 105). BI is a two-session cognitive, clinical examination program followed by two booster sessions, while the CBT program is a tailored, individual, seven-session manual-based treatment. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up, 60% of the participants in the BI group, 50% in the BI and CBT group, 51% in the BI and seal oil group, and 53% in the BI and soy oil group showed reduced sick leave from baseline, and had either partly or fully RTW. The differences between the groups were not statistically significant (χ = 2.54, P = 0.47). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups at any of the other follow-up assessments either, except for a significantly lower sick leave rate in the BI group than the other groups during the first 3 months of follow-up (χ = 9.50, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: CBT and seal oil had no additional benefits over a brief cognitive intervention on sick leave. The brief cognitive intervention alone was superior in facilitating a fast RTW.publishedVersio

Cognitive Interventions and Nutritional Supplements (The CINS Trial): A Randomized Controlled, Multicenter Trial Comparing a Brief Intervention with Additional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Seal Oil, and Soy Oil for Sick-Listed Low Back Pain Patients

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a tailored and manualized cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) or nutritional supplements of seal oil and soy oil had any additional benefits over a brief cognitive intervention (BI) on return to work (RTW). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Brief intervention programs are clinically beneficial and cost-effective for patients with low back pain (LBP). CBT is recommended for LBP, but evidence on RTW is lacking. Seal oil has previously been shown to have a possible effect on muscle pain, but no randomized controlled trials have so far been carried out in LBP patients. METHODS: Four hundred thirteen adults aged 18 to 60 years were included. Participants were sick-listed 2 to 10 months due to LBP. Main outcome was objectively ascertained work participation at 12-month follow-up. Participants were randomly assigned to BI (n = 100), BI and CBT (n = 103), BI and seal oil (n = 105), or BI and soy oil (n = 105). BI is a two-session cognitive, clinical examination program followed by two booster sessions, while the CBT program is a tailored, individual, seven-session manual-based treatment. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up, 60% of the participants in the BI group, 50% in the BI and CBT group, 51% in the BI and seal oil group, and 53% in the BI and soy oil group showed reduced sick leave from baseline, and had either partly or fully RTW. The differences between the groups were not statistically significant (χ = 2.54, P = 0.47). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups at any of the other follow-up assessments either, except for a significantly lower sick leave rate in the BI group than the other groups during the first 3 months of follow-up (χ = 9.50, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: CBT and seal oil had no additional benefits over a brief cognitive intervention on sick leave. The brief cognitive intervention alone was superior in facilitating a fast RTW

Cognitive Interventions and Nutritional Supplements (The CINS Trial): A Randomized Controlled, Multicenter Trial Comparing a Brief Intervention with Additional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Seal Oil, and Soy Oil for Sick-Listed Low Back Pain Patients

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a tailored and manualized cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) or nutritional supplements of seal oil and soy oil had any additional benefits over a brief cognitive intervention (BI) on return to work (RTW). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Brief intervention programs are clinically beneficial and cost-effective for patients with low back pain (LBP). CBT is recommended for LBP, but evidence on RTW is lacking. Seal oil has previously been shown to have a possible effect on muscle pain, but no randomized controlled trials have so far been carried out in LBP patients. METHODS: Four hundred thirteen adults aged 18 to 60 years were included. Participants were sick-listed 2 to 10 months due to LBP. Main outcome was objectively ascertained work participation at 12-month follow-up. Participants were randomly assigned to BI (n = 100), BI and CBT (n = 103), BI and seal oil (n = 105), or BI and soy oil (n = 105). BI is a two-session cognitive, clinical examination program followed by two booster sessions, while the CBT program is a tailored, individual, seven-session manual-based treatment. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up, 60% of the participants in the BI group, 50% in the BI and CBT group, 51% in the BI and seal oil group, and 53% in the BI and soy oil group showed reduced sick leave from baseline, and had either partly or fully RTW. The differences between the groups were not statistically significant (χ = 2.54, P = 0.47). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups at any of the other follow-up assessments either, except for a significantly lower sick leave rate in the BI group than the other groups during the first 3 months of follow-up (χ = 9.50, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: CBT and seal oil had no additional benefits over a brief cognitive intervention on sick leave. The brief cognitive intervention alone was superior in facilitating a fast RTW