Work and mental complaints: are response outcome expectancies more important than work conditions and number of subjective health complaints?

Purpose Investigate the relative effect of response outcome expectancies, work conditions, and number of subjective health complaints (SHC) on anxiety and depression in Norwegian employees. Learned response outcome expectancies are important contributors to health. Individual differences in the expectancy to cope with workplace and general life demands may be important for how work conditions influence health. Method A survey was conducted among 1746 municipal employees (mean age 44.1, SD = 11.5, 81.5 % female), as part of a randomized controlled trial. This cross-sectional study used baseline data. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed. Outcome variables were anxiety and depression; response outcome expectancies, work conditions, and number of SHC were independent variables. Results A high number of SHC was a significant factor in explaining anxiety (OR 1.26), depression (OR 1.22) and comorbid anxiety and depression (OR 1.31). A high degree of no and/or negative response outcome expectancies was a significant factor in explaining depression (OR 1.19) and comorbid anxiety and depression (OR 1.28). The variance accounted for in the full models was 14 % for anxiety, 23 % for depression, and 41 % for comorbid anxiety and depression. Conclusion A high number of SHC, and a high degree of no and/or negative response outcome expectancies were associated with anxiety and depression. The strongest association was found for number of SHC. However, previous studies indicate that it may not be possible to prevent the occurrence of SHC. We suggest that workplace interventions targeting anxiety and depression could focus on influencing and altering employees’ response outcome expectancies.publishedVersio

An educational approach based on a non-injury model compared with individual symptom-based physical training in chronic LBP. A pragmatic, randomised trial with a one-year follow-up

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the treatment of chronic back pain, cognitive methods are attracting increased attention due to evidence of effectiveness similar to that of traditional therapies. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of performing a cognitive intervention based on a non-injury model with that of a symptom-based physical training method on the outcomes of low back pain (LBP), activity limitation, LBP attitudes (fear-avoidance beliefs and back beliefs), physical activity levels, sick leave, and quality of life, in chronic LBP patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study was a pragmatic, single-blind, randomised, parallel-group trial. Patients with chronic/recurrent LBP were randomised to one of the following treatments: 1. <it>Educational programme </it>: the emphasis was on creating confidence that the back is strong, that loads normally do not cause any damage despite occasional temporary pain, that reducing the focus on the pain might facilitate more natural and less painful movements, and that it is beneficial to stay physically active. 2. <it>Individual symptom-based physical training programme </it>: directional-preference exercises for those centralising their pain with repetitive movements; 'stabilising exercises' for those deemed 'unstable' based on specific tests; or intensive dynamic exercises for the remaining patients. Follow-up questionnaires (examiner-blinded) were completed at 2, 6 and 12 months. The main statistical test was an ANCOVA adjusted for baseline values.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 207 patients participated with the median age of 39 years (IQR 33-47); 52% were female, 105 were randomised to the educational programme and 102 to the physical training programme. The two groups were comparable at baseline. For the primary outcome measures, there was a non-significant trend towards activity limitation being reduced mostly in the educational programme group, although of doubtful clinical relevance. Regarding secondary outcomes, improvement in fear-avoidance beliefs was also better in the educational programme group. All other variables were about equally influenced by the two treatments. The median number of treatment sessions was 3 for the educational programme group and 6 for the physical training programme group.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>An educational approach to treatment for chronic LBP resulted in at least as good outcomes as a symptom-based physical training method, despite fewer treatment sessions.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Clinicaltrials.gov: # NCT00410319</p

Work and Mental Complaints: Are Response Outcome Expectancies More Important Than Work Conditions and Number of Subjective Health Complaints?

Purpose Investigate the relative effect of response outcome expectancies, work conditions, and number of subjective health complaints (SHC) on anxiety and depression in Norwegian employees. Learned response outcome expectancies are important contributors to health. Individual differences in the expectancy to cope with workplace and general life demands may be important for how work conditions influence health. Method A survey was conducted among 1746 municipal employees (mean age 44.1, SD = 11.5, 81.5 % female), as part of a randomized controlled trial. This cross-sectional study used baseline data. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed. Outcome variables were anxiety and depression; response outcome expectancies, work conditions, and number of SHC were independent variables. Results A high number of SHC was a significant factor in explaining anxiety (OR 1.26), depression (OR 1.22) and comorbid anxiety and depression (OR 1.31). A high degree of no and/or negative response outcome expectancies was a significant factor in explaining depression (OR 1.19) and comorbid anxiety and depression (OR 1.28). The variance accounted for in the full models was 14 % for anxiety, 23 % for depression, and 41 % for comorbid anxiety and depression. Conclusion A high number of SHC, and a high degree of no and/or negative response outcome expectancies were associated with anxiety and depression. The strongest association was found for number of SHC. However, previous studies indicate that it may not be possible to prevent the occurrence of SHC. We suggest that workplace interventions targeting anxiety and depression could focus on influencing and altering employees’ response outcome expectancies

Workplace Inclusion of Potentially Marginalized Groups: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of the atWork Intervention

Study design: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Aim: The main aim of this study was to investigate possible differences between the modified atWork intervention (MAW) and the original atWork intervention (OAW) in workplace inclusion. atWork is an intervention using the workplace as an arena to normalize and debunk myths regarding common health complaints. Methods: Employees working in 93 Norwegian kindergartens were eligible participants. Kindergartens were randomly allocated to two different health promoting interventions (MAW n = 406 employees, OAW n = 438 employees) in a concealed process. There was no blinding to group allocation. The outcome was workplace inclusion of persons with different health or social challenges, measured by the Workplace Inclusion Questionnaire. MAW targeted musculoskeletal and mental health complaints and consisted of two sessions for everyone at the workplace and two additional sessions for managers and workplace representatives. OAW targeted musculoskeletal complaints and consisted of three sessions for everyone at the workplace, in addition to peer support. Results: There were no significant differences in change on workplace inclusion between the MAW and the OAW after the interventions. However, participants in the MAW group were more willing to include the cases describing an older worker, a previous drug addict, and a person with minority background after the intervention, and participants in the OAW group were more willing to include the cases describing a person with a spine fracture and a person with ADHD after the intervention. Conclusions: Both interventions showed a positive effect on workplace inclusion, but there were no between-group differences. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02396797. Registered March 23th, 2015

Can group-based reassuring information alter low back pain behavior? A cluster-randomized controlled trial?

Background Low back pain (LBP) is common in the population and multifactorial in nature, often involving negative consequences. Reassuring information to improve coping is recommended for reducing the negative consequences of LBP. Adding a simple non-threatening explanation for the pain (temporary muscular dysfunction) has been successful at altering beliefs and behavior when delivered with other intervention elements. This study investigates the isolated effect of this specific information on future occupational behavior outcomes when delivered to the workforce. Design A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Methods Publically employed workers (n=505) from 11 Danish municipality centers were randomized at center-level (cluster) to either intervention (two 1-hour group-based talks at the workplace) or control. The talks provided reassuring information together with a simple non-threatening explanation for LBP - the ‘functional-disturbance’-model. Data collections took place monthly over a 1-year period using text message tracking (SMS). Primary outcomes were self-reported days of cutting down usual activities and work participation. Secondary outcomes were self-reported back beliefs, work ability, number of healthcare visits, bothersomeness, restricted activity, use of pain medication, and sadness/depression. Results There was no between-group difference in the development of LBP during follow-up. Cumulative logistic regression analyses showed no between-group difference on days of cutting down activities, but increased odds for more days of work participation in the intervention group (OR=1.83 95% CI: 1.08-3.12). Furthermore, the intervention group was more likely to report: higher work ability, reduced visits to healthcare professionals, lower bothersomeness, lower levels of sadness/depression, and positive back beliefs. Conclusion Reassuring information involving a simple non-threatening explanation for LBP significantly increased the odds for days of work participation and higher work ability among workers who went on to experience LBP during the 12-month follow-up. Our results confirm the potential for public-health education for LBP, and add to the discussion of simple versus multidisciplinary interventions

Protocol for the Cognitive Interventions and Nutritional Supplements (CINS) trial: A randomized controlled multicenter trial of a brief intervention (BI) versus a BI plus cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) versus nutritional supplements for patients with long-lasting muscle and back pain

Background: Brief intervention programs are clinically beneficial, and cost efficient treatments for low back pain, when offered at 8-12 weeks, compared with treatment as usual. However, about 30% of the patients do not return to work. The European Guidelines for treatment of chronic low back pain recommends Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), but conclude that further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of CBT for chronic low back pain. Methods/Design: The aim of the multicenter CINS trial (Cognitive Interventions and Nutritional Supplements) is to compare the effectiveness of 4 different interventions; Brief Intervention, Brief Intervention and CBT, Brief Intervention and nutritional supplements of seal oil, and Brief Intervention and nutritional supplements of soy oil. All participants will be randomly assigned to the interventions. The nutritional supplements will be tested in a double blind design. 400 patients will be recruited from a population of chronic low back pain patients that have been sick listed for 2-10 months. Four outpatient clinics, located in different parts of Norway, will participate in recruitment and treatment of the patients. The Brief Intervention is a one session cognitive, clinical examination program based on a non-injury model, where return to normal activity and work is the main goal, and is followed by two booster sessions. The CBT is a tailored treatment involving 7 sessions, following a detailed manual. The nutritional supplements consist of a dosage of 10 grams of either soy or seal oil (capsules) per day for 3 months, administered in a double blind design. All patients will be followed up with questionnaires after 3, 6 and 12 months, while sick leave data will be collected up to at least 24 months after randomization. The primary outcome of the study is sick leave and will be based on register data from the National Insurance Administration. Secondary outcomes include self-reported data on disability, pain, and psychological variables. Conclusions: To our knowledge, the CINS trial will be the largest, randomized trial of psychological and nutritional interventions for chronic low back pain patients to date. It will provide important information regarding the effectiveness of CBT and seal oil for chronic low back pain patients