Process Evaluation of a Workers' Health Surveillance Program for Meat Processing Workers

Objective To evaluate the implementation process of a workers' health surveillance (WHS) program in a Dutch meat processing company. Methods Workers from five plants were eligible to participate in the WHS program. The program consisted of four evaluative components and an intervention component. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to evaluate seven process aspects. Data were gathered by interviews with stakeholders, participant questionnaires, and from registries of the company and occupational health service. Results Two recruitment strategies were used: open invitation or automatic participation. Of the 986 eligible workers, 305 participated in the program. Average reach was 53 %. Two out of five program components could not be assessed on dose delivered, dose received and fidelity. If components were assessable, 85-100 % of the components was delivered, 66-100 % of the components was received by participants, and fidelity was 100 %. Participants were satisfied with the WHS program (mean score 7.6). Contextual factors that facilitated implementation were among others societal developments and management support. Factors that formed barriers were program novelty and delayed follow-up. Conclusion The WHS program was well received by participants. Not all participants were offered the same number of program components, and not all components were performed according to protocol. Deviation from protocol is an indication of program failure and may affect program effectiveness.</p

Use and perceived added value of patient-reported measurement instruments by physiotherapists treating acute low back pain:a survey study among Dutch physiotherapists

Contains fulltext : 217665.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Validity of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles for Assessing Upper Extremity Work Demands

Objectives: The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) is used in vocational rehabilitation to guide decisions about the ability of a person with activity limitations to perform activities at work. The DOT has categorized physical work demands in five categories. The validity of this categorization is unknown. Aim of this study was to investigate whether the DOT could be used validly to guide decisions for patients with injuries to the upper extremities. Four hypotheses were tested. Methods: A database including 701 healthy workers was used. All subjects filled out the Dutch Musculoskeletal Questionnaire, from which an Upper Extremity Work Demands score (UEWD) was derived. First, relation between the DOT-categories and UEWD-score was analysed using Spearman correlations. Second, variance of the UEWD-score in occupational groups was tested by visually inspecting boxplots and assessing kurtosis of the distribution. Third, it was investigated whether occupations classified in one DOT-category, could significantly differ on UEWD-scores. Fourth, it was investigated whether occupations in different DOT-categories could have similar UEWD-scores using Mann Whitney U-tests (MWU). Results: Relation between the DOT-categories and the UEWD-score was weak (r(sp) = 0.40; p < .01). Overlap between categories was found. Kurtosis exceeded +/- 1.0 in 3 occupational groups, indicating large variance. UEWD-scores were significantly different within one DOT-category (MWU = 1.500; p < .001). UEWD scores between DOT-categories were not significantly different (MWU = 203.000; p = .49). Conclusion: All four hypotheses could not be rejected. The DOT appears to be invalid for assessing upper extremity work demands

Effectiveness and Cost-benefit Evaluation of a Comprehensive Workers' Health Surveillance Program for Sustainable Employability of Meat Processing Workers

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive workers' health surveillance (WHS) program on aspects of sustainable employability and cost-benefit. Methods A cluster randomized stepped wedge trial was performed in a Dutch meat processing company from february 2012 until march 2015. In total 305 workers participated in the trial. Outcomes were retrieved during a WHS program, by multiple questionnaires, and from company registries. Primary outcomes were sickness absence, work ability, and productivity. Secondary outcomes were health, vitality, and psychosocial workload. Data were analyzed with linear and logistic multilevel models. Cost-benefit analyses from the employer's perspective were performed as well. Results Primary outcomes sickness absence (OR = 1.40), work ability (B = -0.63) and productivity (OR = 0.71) were better in the control condition. Secondary outcomes did not or minimally differ between conditions. Of the 12 secondary outcomes, the only outcome that scored better in the experimental condition was meaning of work (B = 0.18). Controlling for confounders did not or minimally change the results. However, our stepped wedge design did not enable adjustment for confounding in the last two periods of the trial. The WHS program resulted in higher costs for the employer on the short and middle term. Conclusions Primary outcomes did not improve after program implementation and secondary outcomes remained equal after implementation. The program was not cost-beneficial after 1-3 year follow-up. Main limitation that may have contributed to absence of positive effects may be program failure, because interventions were not deployed as intended

What can we learn from long-term studies on chronic low back pain?:A scoping review

PURPOSE: A scoping review was conducted with the objective to identify and map the available evidence from long-term studies on chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP), to examine how these studies are conducted, and to address potential knowledge gaps. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to march 2021, not restricted by date or language. Experimental and observational study types were included. Inclusion criteria were: participants between 18 and 65 years old with non-specific sub-acute or chronic LBP, minimum average follow-up of > 2 years, and studies had to report at least one of the following outcome measures: disability, quality of life, work participation, or health care utilization. Methodological quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment. Data were extracted, tabulated, and reported thematically. RESULTS: Ninety studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies examined invasive treatments (72%), conservative (21%), or a comparison of both (7%). No natural cohorts were included. Methodological quality was weak (16% of studies), moderate (63%), or strong (21%) and generally improved after 2010. Disability (92%) and pain (86%) outcomes were most commonly reported, followed by work (25%), quality of life (15%), and health care utilization (4%). Most studies reported significant improvement at long-term follow-up (median 51 months, range 26 months-18 years). Only 10 (11%) studies took more than one measurement > 2 year after baseline. CONCLUSION: Patients with persistent non-specific LBP seem to experience improvement in pain, disability and quality of life years after seeking treatment. However, it remains unclear what factors might have influenced these improvements, and whether they are treatment-related. Studies varied greatly in design, patient population, and methods of data collection. There is still little insight into the long-term natural course of LBP. Additionally, few studies perform repeated measurements during long-term follow-up or report on patient-centered outcomes other than pain or disability

Trajectories of Disability and Low Back Pain Impact 2-year Follow-up of the Groningen Spine Cohort:2-year Follow-up of the Groningen Spine Cohort

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study OBJECTIVE.: To identify treatment response trajectories in patients with low back pain (LBP) during and after multidisciplinary care in a tertiary spine center, and to examine baseline patient characteristics that can distinguish trajectories. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Treatment response is often heterogeneous between patients with LBP. Knowledge on key characteristics that are associated with courses of disability could identify patients at risk for less favorable outcome. This knowledge will help improve shared decision making. METHODS: Adult patients with LBP completed questionnaires on disability (Pain Disability Index) and LBP impact (Impact Stratification of the National Institutes of Health minimal dataset) at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months follow-up. Latent class analyses were applied to identify trajectories of disability and LBP impact. Baseline socio-demographic and clinical patient characteristics were compared between trajectory subgroups. RESULTS: Follow-up was available for 996 patients on disability and 707 patients on LBP impact. Six trajectories were identified for both outcome measures. Three disability trajectories remained stable at distinct levels of severity (68% of patients) and three trajectories showed patterns of recovery (32%). For LBP impact there was one stable trajectory (17%), two slightly improving (59%), two recovering (15%), and one with a pattern of recovery and relapse (15%). Significant differences between trajectories were observed for almost all baseline patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: On average, patients show moderate improvements in disability and LBP impact two years after visiting a multidisciplinary tertiary spine center. However, latent class analyses revealed that most patients belong to subgroups experiencing stable levels of disability and LBP impact. Differences in baseline patient characteristics were mostly associated with baseline levels of functioning, instead of (un)favorable outcome during follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Personal and Societal Impact of Low Back Pain:The Groningen Spine Cohort

Study Design. Cross-sectional study. Objective. The aim of this study was to study the personal and societal impact of low back pain (LBP) in patients admitted to a multidisciplinary spine center. Summary of Background Data. The socioeconomic burden of 113P is very high. A minority of patients visit secondary or tertiary care because of severe and long-lasting complaints. This subgroup may account for a major part of disability and costs, yet could potentially gain most from treatment. Currently, little is known about the personal and societal burden in patients with chronic complex LBP visiting secondary/tertiary care. Methods. Baseline data were acquired through patient-reported questionnaires and health insurance claims. Primary outcomes were LBP impact (Impact Stratification, range 8-50), functioning (Pain Disability Index, PDI; 0-70), quality of life (EuroQol-5D, EQ5D; -0.33 to 1.00), work ability (Work Ability Score, WAS; 0 10), work participation, productivity costs (Productivity Cost Questionnaire), and healthcare costs 1 year before baseline. Healthcare costs were compared with matched primary and secondary care LBP samples. Descriptive and inferential statistics were applied. Results. In total, 1502 patients (age 46.3 +/- 12.8 years, 57% female) were included. Impact Stratification was 35.2 +/- 7.5 with severe impact (>= 35) for 58% of patients. PDI was 38.2 +/- 14.1, EQ5D 0.39 (interquartile range, IQR: 0.17-0.72); WAS 4.0 (IQR: 1.0-6.0) and 17% were permanently work-disabled. Mean total health care costs ((sic)4875, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4309-5498) were higher compared to the matched primary care sample (n =4995) ((sic)2365, 95% CI: 2219-2526, P <0.001), and similar to the matched secondary care sample (n -4993) ((sic)4379, 95% CI: 4180-4590). Productivity loss was estimated at (sic)4315 per patient (95% CI: 3898 4688) during 6 months. Conclusion. In patients seeking multidisciplinary spine care, the personal and societal impact of LBP is very high. Specifically, quality of life and work ability are poor and health care costs are twice as high compared to patients seeking primary LBP care

Development and internal validation of a machine learning prediction model for low back pain non-recovery in patients with an acute episode consulting a physiotherapist in primary care

BACKGROUND: While low back pain occurs in nearly everybody and is the leading cause of disability worldwide, we lack instruments to accurately predict persistence of acute low back pain. We aimed to develop and internally validate a machine learning model predicting non-recovery in acute low back pain and to compare this with current practice and 'traditional' prediction modeling. METHODS: Prognostic cohort-study in primary care physiotherapy. Patients (n = 247) with acute low back pain (≤ one month) consulting physiotherapists were included. Candidate predictors were assessed by questionnaire at baseline and (to capture early recovery) after one and two weeks. Primary outcome was non-recovery after three months, defined as at least mild pain (Numeric Rating Scale > 2/10). Machine learning models to predict non-recovery were developed and internally validated, and compared with two current practices in physiotherapy (STarT Back tool and physiotherapists' expectation) and 'traditional' logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of the participants did not recover at three months. The best performing machine learning model showed acceptable predictive performance (area under the curve: 0.66). Although this was no better than a'traditional' logistic regression model, it outperformed current practice. CONCLUSIONS: We developed two prognostic models containing partially different predictors, with acceptable performance for predicting (non-)recovery in patients with acute LBP, which was better than current practice. Our prognostic models have the potential of integration in a clinical decision support system to facilitate data-driven, personalized treatment of acute low back pain, but needs external validation first