Subacute and chronic, non-specific back and neck pain: cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation versus primary care. A randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the industrial world, non-specific back and neck pain (BNP) is the largest diagnostic group underlying sick-listing. For patients with subacute and chronic (= full-time sick-listed for 43 – 84 and 85 – 730 days, respectively) BNP, cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation was compared with primary care. The specific aim was to answer the question: within an 18-month follow-up, will the outcomes differ in respect of sick-listing and number of health-care visits?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>After stratification by age (≤ 44/≥ 45 years) and subacute/chronic BNP, 125 Swedish primary-care patients were randomly allocated to cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation (rehabilitation group) or continued primary care (primary-care group). Outcome measures were <it>Return-to-work share </it>(percentage) and <it>Return-to-work chance </it>(hazard ratios) over 18 months, <it>Net days </it>(crude sick-listing days × degree), and the number of <it>Visits </it>(to physicians, physiotherapists etc.) over 18 months and the three component six-month periods. Descriptive statistics, Cox regression and mixed-linear models were used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All patients: <it>Return-to-work share </it>and <it>Return-to-work chance </it>were equivalent between the groups. <it>Net days </it>and <it>Visits </it>were equivalent over 18 months but decreased significantly more rapidly for the rehabilitation group over the six-month periods (<it>p </it>< .05). Subacute patients: <it>Return-to-work share </it>was equivalent. <it>Return-to-work chance </it>was significantly greater for the rehabilitation group (hazard ratio 3.5 [95%CI1.001 – 12.2]). <it>Net days </it>were equivalent over 18 months but decreased significantly more rapidly for the rehabilitation group over the six-month periods and there were 31 days fewer in the third period. <it>Visits </it>showed similar though non-significant differences and there were half as many in the third period. Chronic patients: <it>Return-to-work share, Return-to-work chance </it>and <it>Net days </it>were equivalent. <it>Visits </it>were equivalent over 18 months but tended to decrease more rapidly for the rehabilitation group and there were half as many in the third period (non-significant).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results were equivalent over 18 months. However, there were indications that cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation in the longer run might be superior to primary care. For subacute BNP, it might be superior in terms of sick-listing and health-care visits; for chronic BNP, in terms of health-care visits only. More conclusive results concerning this possible long-term effect might require a longer follow-up.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00488735.</p

Different work capacity impairments in patients with different work-anxieties

Purpose: Persons with work-anxieties are especially endangered for work-impairment and sick-leave. Work-impairment is not directly due to symptoms but due to illness-related capacity impairments. Work capacity impairments can be described on different dimensions (e.g. social interaction, decision making and judgment, endurance, mobility). Understanding the type of work capacity impairment is important for reintegration interventions This is the first study to investigate work capacity impairment in risk-patients with different work-anxieties. Methods: Two hundred forty four patients in inpatient rehabilitation suffering from work-anxieties were investigated concerning degree of work capacity impairment. Capacity impairment was described on 13 capacity dimensions according to the internationally evaluated observer-rating Mini-ICF-APP (impairment grades 0-4, grade 2 and higher indicating clinically relevant observable impairment). A physician´s rating on global work ability prognosis was obtained, and sick-leave duration during six months after assessment. Patients with different work-anxieties were compared concerning capacity impairments. Results: Patients with different work-anxieties were impaired in different capacity dimensions: work-related social anxiety went along with clinically relevant impairment in capacity of assertiveness (M=2.40), anxiety of insufficiency went along with impaired capacity of endurance (M=2.20), work-related generalized worrying was accompanied by impairment in the capacity for decision making (M=1.82). Specific capacity impairment dimensions were related with sick-leave duration, while a global work ability prognosis was not. Conclusions: The capacity approach is useful to describe work-impairment more precisely and beyond symptoms. On this basis reintegration-focusing interventions such as capacity training (e.g. social interaction training) or work adjustment (e.g. reducing exposure with interactional work tasks) can be initiated