4.5 Article

Determinants of return to work in good health among workers with back pain who consult in primary care settings: a 2-year prospective study

期刊

EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 641-655

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-006-0180-2

关键词

back pain; cohort studies; return to work; risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many factors have been linked to return to work after a back pain episode, but our understanding of this phenomenon is limited and cross-sectional dichotomous indices of return to work are not valid measures of this construct. To describe the course of return to work in good health (RWGH-a composite index of back pain outcome) among workers who consulted in primary care settings for back pain and identify its determinants, a 2-year prospective study was conducted. Subjects (n = 1,007, 68.4%) were workers who consulted in primary care settings of the Quebec City area for a nonspecific back pain. They completed five telephone interviews over 2 years (follow-up = 86%). Analyses linking baseline variables with 2-year outcome were conducted with polytomous logistic regression. The proportion of success in RWGH increased from 18% at 6 weeks to 57% at 2 years. In women, persistent pain, pain radiating to extremities, increasing job seniority, not having a unionized job, feeling that the physician did listen carefully and increasing fear-avoidance beliefs towards work and activity were determinants of failure in RWGH. In men, decreasing age, cigarette smoking, poor self-reported health status, pain in the thoracic area, previous back surgeries, a non-compensated injury, high pain levels, belief that job is below qualifications, likelihood of losing job, job status, satisfaction with health services and fear-avoidance beliefs towards work were all significant. RWGH among workers with back pain receives multiple influences, especially among men. In both genders, however, fear-avoidance beliefs about work are associated with failure and high self-efficacy is associated with success.

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

4.5
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