Descriptive epidemiology of somatising tendency: findings from the CUPID study.

Somatising tendency, defined as a predisposition to worry about common somatic symptoms, is importantly associated with various aspects of health and health-related behaviour, including musculoskeletal pain and associated disability. To explore its epidemiological characteristics, and how it can be specified most efficiently, we analysed data from an international longitudinal study. A baseline questionnaire, which included questions from the Brief Symptom Inventory about seven common symptoms, was completed by 12,072 participants aged 20-59 from 46 occupational groups in 18 countries (response rate 70%). The seven symptoms were all mutually associated (odds ratios for pairwise associations 3.4 to 9.3), and each contributed to a measure of somatising tendency that exhibited an exposure-response relationship both with multi-site pain (prevalence rate ratios up to six), and also with sickness absence for non-musculoskeletal reasons. In most participants, the level of somatising tendency was little changed when reassessed after a mean interval of 14 months (75% having a change of 0 or 1 in their symptom count), although the specific symptoms reported at follow-up often differed from those at baseline. Somatising tendency was more common in women than men, especially at older ages, and varied markedly across the 46 occupational groups studied, with higher rates in South and Central America. It was weakly associated with smoking, but not with level of education. Our study supports the use of questions from the Brief Symptom Inventory as a method for measuring somatising tendency, and suggests that in adults of working age, it is a fairly stable trait

Association between night-shift work, sleep quality and health-related quality of life: a cross-sectional study among manufacturing workers in a middle-income setting

Objectives Night-shift work may adversely affect health. This study aimed to determine the impact of night-shift work on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and to assess whether sleep quality was a mediating factor.Design A cross-sectional study.Setting 11 manufacturing factories in Malaysia.Participants 177 night-shift workers aged 40–65 years old were compared with 317 non-night-shift workers.Primary and secondary outcomes Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire on socio-demographics and lifestyle factors, 12-item Short Form Health Survey V.2 (SF-12v2) and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). The Baron and Kenny’s method, Sobel test and multiple mediation model with bootstrapping were applied to determine whether PSQI score or its components mediated the association between night-shift work and HRQoL.Results Night-shift work was associated with sleep impairment and HRQoL. Night-shift workers had significantly lower mean scores in all the eight SF-12 domains (p<0.001). Compared with non-night-shift workers, night-shift workers were significantly more likely to report poorer sleep quality, longer sleep latency, shorter sleep duration, sleep disturbances and daytime dysfunction (p<0.001). Mediation analyses showed that PSQI global score mediated the association between night-shift work and HRQoL. ‘Subjective sleep quality’ (indirect effect=−0.24, SE=0.14 and bias corrected (BC) 95% CI −0.58 to −0.01) and ‘sleep disturbances’ (indirect effect=−0.79, SE=0.22 and BC 95% CI −1.30 to −0.42) were mediators for the association between night-shift work and physical well-being, whereas ‘sleep latency’ (indirect effect=−0.51, SE=0.21 and BC 95% CI −1.02 to −0.16) and ‘daytime dysfunction’ (indirect effect=−1.11, SE=0.32 and BC 95% CI −1.86 to −0.58) were mediators with respect to mental well-being.Conclusion Sleep quality partially explains the association between night-shift work and poorer HRQoL. Organisations should treat the sleep quality of night-shift workers as a top priority area for action to improve their employees’ overall wellbeing

The CUPID (Cultural and Psychosocial Influences on Disability) study: methods of data collection and characteristics of study sample

Background: The CUPID (Cultural and Psychosocial Influences on Disability) study was established to explore the hypothesis that common musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and associated disability are importantly influenced by culturally determined health beliefs and expectations. This paper describes the methods of data collection and various characteristics of the study sample.Methods/Principal Findings: standardised questionnaire covering musculoskeletal symptoms, disability and potential risk factors, was used to collect information from 47 samples of nurses, office workers, and other (mostly manual) workers in 18 countries from six continents. In addition, local investigators provided data on economic aspects of employment for each occupational group. Participation exceeded 80% in 33 of the 47 occupational groups, and after pre-specified exclusions, analysis was based on 12,426 subjects (92 to 1018 per occupational group). As expected, there was high usage of computer keyboards by office workers, while nurses had the highest prevalence of heavy manual lifting in all but one country. There was substantial heterogeneity between occupational groups in economic and psychosocial aspects of work; three- to five-fold variation in awareness of someone outside work with musculoskeletal pain; and more than ten-fold variation in the prevalence of adverse health beliefs about back and arm pain, and in awareness of terms such as “repetitive strain injury” (RSI).Conclusions/Significance: the large differences in psychosocial risk factors (including knowledge and beliefs about MSDs) between occupational groups should allow the study hypothesis to be addressed effectivel

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. (C) 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

The CUPID (Cultural and Psychosocial Influences on Disability) Study: Methods of Data Collection and Characteristics of Study Sample

Background: The CUPID (Cultural and Psychosocial Influences on Disability) study was established to explore the hypothesis that common musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and associated disability are importantly influenced by culturally determined health beliefs and expectations. This paper describes the methods of data collection and various characteristics of the study sample. Methods/Principal Findings: A standardised questionnaire covering musculoskeletal symptoms, disability and potential risk factors, was used to collect information from 47 samples of nurses, office workers, and other (mostly manual) workers in 18 countries from six continents. In addition, local investigators provided data on economic aspects of employment for each occupational group. Participation exceeded 80% in 33 of the 47 occupational groups, and after pre-specified exclusions, analysis was based on 12,426 subjects (92 to 1018 per occupational group). As expected, there was high usage of computer keyboards by office workers, while nurses had the highest prevalence of heavy manual lifting in all but one country. There was substantial heterogeneity between occupational groups in economic and psychosocial aspects of work; three-to fivefold variation in awareness of someone outside work with musculoskeletal pain; and more than ten-fold variation in the prevalence of adverse health beliefs about back and arm pain, and in awareness of terms such as “repetitive strain injury” (RSI). Conclusions/Significance: The large differences in psychosocial risk factors (including knowledge and beliefs about MSDs) between occupational groups should allow the study hypothesis to be addressed effectively

Patterns of multisite pain and associations with risk factors

To explore definitions for multisite pain, and compare associations with risk factors for different patterns of musculoskeletal pain, we analysed cross-sectional data from the Cultural and Psychosocial Influences on Disability (CUPID) study. The study sample comprised 12,410 adults aged 20-59 years from 47 occupational groups in 18 countries. A standardised questionnaire was used to collect information about pain in the past month at each of 10 anatomical sites, and about potential risk factors. Associations with pain outcomes were assessed by Poisson regression, and characterised by prevalence rate ratios (PRRs). Extensive pain, affecting 6-10 anatomical sites, was reported much more frequently than would be expected if the occurrence of pain at each site were independent (674 participants vs 41.9 expected). In comparison with pain involving only 1-3 sites, it showed much stronger associations (relative to no pain) with risk factors such as female sex (PRR 1.6 vs 1.1), older age (PRR 2.6 vs 1.1), somatising tendency (PRR 4.6 vs 1.3), and exposure to multiple physically stressing occupational activities (PRR 5.0 vs 1.4). After adjustment for number of sites with pain, these risk factors showed no additional association with a distribution of pain that was widespread according to the frequently used American College of Rheumatology criteria. Our analysis supports the classification of pain at multiple anatomical sites simply by the number of sites affected, and suggests that extensive pain differs importantly in its associations with risk factors from pain that is limited to only a small number of anatomical sites. (c) 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Baseline prevalence (%) of distressing somatic symptoms in past 7 days by sex and age.

<p>Baseline prevalence (%) of distressing somatic symptoms in past 7 days by sex and age.</p

Adverse health beliefs regarding low back and arm pain – prevalence (%) by occupational group.

a<p>Completely agree that such pain is commonly caused by people’s work.</p>b<p>Completely agree that for someone with such pain, a) physical activity should be avoided as it might cause harm, and b) rest is needed to get better.</p>c<p>Completely agree that for someone with such pain, rest is needed to get better, and completely disagree that such problems usually get better within three months.</p