4.6 Article

Disabling musculoskeletal pain in working populations: Is it the job, the person, or the culture?

Journal

PAIN
Volume 154, Issue 6, Pages 856-863

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.02.008

Keywords

Low back; Forearm; Pain; International; Socioeconomic; Psychosocial

Funding

  1. UK Medical Research Council
  2. Brazil: Colt Foundation [CF/03/05]
  3. Ecuador: Colt Foundation [CF/03/05]
  4. Colombia: NIH [5D43 TW00 0644-13, 0005919J]
  5. NIH [0005919J, 5D43 TW00 0644-15]
  6. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Costa Rica: Colt Foundation [CF/03/05]
  7. Nicaragua: Colt Foundation [CF/03/05]
  8. UK: Colt Foundation [CF/03/05]
  9. Spain: Spanish Health Research Fund [FIS 070422]
  10. Epidemiology and Public Health CIBER
  11. Carlos III Institute of Health
  12. Ministry of Science and Innovation
  13. Italy: Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy
  14. Greece: Colt Foundation [CF/03/05]
  15. Estonia: Colt Foundation [CF/03/05]
  16. Lebanon: Colt Foundation [CF/03/05]
  17. Iran: Deputy for Training and Research
  18. Shahroud University of Medical Sciences
  19. Pakistan: Colt Foundation [CF/03/05]
  20. Sri Lanka: International Training and Research in Environmental and Occupational Health (ITREOH) Program of the University of Alabama at Birmingham from the National Institutes of Health and the Fogarty International Center [NIH-FIC] [5 D43 TWO5750]
  21. Japan: University of Tokyo
  22. South Africa: Colt Foundation [CF/03/05]
  23. Australia: Monash University Strategic Grant Scheme
  24. Monash University Near Miss Grant for NHMRC projects
  25. NHMRC
  26. VCWH by the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia
  27. New Zealand: Health Research Council of New Zealand (International Investment Opportunity Fund Grant)
  28. Southwest Center for Occupational and Environmental Health at the University of Texas Health Science Center
  29. NIH Fogarty International Center
  30. MRC [MC_UP_A620_1018, G0400490] Funding Source: UKRI
  31. Medical Research Council [G0400490, MC_UP_A620_1018] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available