4.5 Article

Predictors of musculoskeletal pain in men - A twenty-year follow-up from examination at enlistment

期刊

SPINE
卷 25, 期 23, 页码 3080-3086

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200012010-00016

关键词

back pain; follow-up; heavy work environment; military service; neck pain; obesity; risk factors; smoking

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design. Prospective study with follow-up by a postal questionnaire to 6626 men nearly 40 years of age who had been examined for the first time at the age of 18. Objectives. To study the predictability of frequent musculosketetal problems, health, lifestyle, and work situation from the examination 20 years earlier. Background. Those who enlisted for,military duty during 6 months in 1979-1980 answered a questionnaire focusing on back pain, smoking) and physical work exposure. As these men enter the biologic age when back pain is most frequent, a follow-up was of interest. Methods. A new questionnaire was sent to those from the enlistment group who could be identified in the population register, and the answers-were compared with those given at enlistment. Results. The prevalence of law back pain increased from 38% to 74% during the 20-year period. Neck or shoulder problems were nearly as common as back problems. The number of those with a body mass index more than 25 had increased from 9% to 50%, and smoking had decreased from 29% to 14%. The odds ratio for frequent back/neck/shoulder problems at follow-up evaluation was 8.7 (95% CI: 3.78-20.10) if the person had experienced back pain that greatly affected everyday life at enlistment, 3.0 (95% CI: 2.33-3.93) if he had been off work or school because of that pain, and 2.2 (95% CI 1.57-3.24) if he had been doing heavy work already at the time of enlistment. Conclusion. Early back pain causing absence from work, reduced activity levels because of the pain, and heavy work loads showed a significantly increased risk for frequent pain problems at follow-up examination.

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