4.6 Article

Threshold of Musculoskeletal Pain Intensity for Increased Risk of Long-Term Sickness Absence among Female Healthcare Workers in Eldercare

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041287

关键词

-

资金

  1. Danish Parliament

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Musculoskeletal disorders increase the risk for absenteeism and work disability. However, the threshold when musculoskeletal pain intensity significantly increases the risk of sickness absence among different occupations is unknown. This study estimates the risk for long-term sickness absence (LTSA) from different pain intensities in the low back, neck/shoulder and knees among female healthcare workers in eldercare. Methods: Prospective cohort study among 8,732 Danish female healthcare workers responding to a questionnaire in 20042005, and subsequently followed for one year in a national register of social transfer payments (DREAM). Using Cox regression hazard ratio (HR) analysis we modeled risk estimates of pain intensities on a scale from 0-9 (reference 0, where 0 is no pain and 9 is worst imaginable pain) in the low back, neck/shoulders and knees during the last three months for onset of LTSA (receiving sickness absence compensation for at least eight consecutive weeks) during one-year follow-up. Results: During follow-up, the 12-month prevalence of LTSA was 6.3%. With adjustment for age, BMI, smoking and leisure physical activity, the thresholds of pain intensities significantly increasing risk of LTSA for the low back (HR 1.44 [95% CI 1.07-1.93]), neck/shoulders (HR 1.47 [95% CI 1.10-1.96]) and knees (HR 1.43 [95% CI 1.06-1.93]) were 5, 4 and 3 (scale 0-9), respectively, referencing pain intensity of 0. Conclusion: The threshold of pain intensity significantly increasing the risk for LTSA among female healthcare workers varies across body regions, with knee pain having the lowest threshold. This knowledge may be used in the prevention of LTSA among health care workers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据