Return to Work in Employees with Low Back Pain: Comparing Brief and Multidisciplinary Interventions
Author Information
Author(s): Stapelfeldt Christina M, Christiansen David H, Jensen Ole K, Nielsen Claus V, Petersen Karin D, Jensen Chris
Primary Institution: Department of Clinical Social Medicine, Centre of Public Health, Central Denmark Region and Department of Clinical Social Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Public Health, University of Aarhus, Denmark
Hypothesis
Particular subgroups defined by work-related factors would return earlier to work by a multidisciplinary than by a brief intervention.
Conclusion
Multidisciplinary intervention seemed more effective than brief intervention in subgroups of patients with low job satisfaction, no influence on work planning, and feeling at risk of losing their jobs due to their sick leave.
Supporting Evidence
- The multidisciplinary intervention group ensured a quicker return to work than the brief intervention group in a subgroup with low job satisfaction.
- The opposite effect was seen in the subgroup with high job satisfaction.
- Participants without influence on work planning benefitted more from the multidisciplinary intervention.
- Participants with influence on work planning returned to work faster with the brief intervention.
Takeaway
This study looked at how different types of help can help people with back pain go back to work faster, especially for those who are unhappy at their jobs.
Methodology
Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a brief or a multidisciplinary intervention, and their return to work was tracked over a year.
Potential Biases
Potential bias due to self-reported data and the exclusion of claimants may affect the results.
Limitations
The study's findings may not be generalizable due to the specific population and the exclusion of claimants in some analyses.
Participant Demographics
Participants were aged 16-60, with a mean age of approximately 42 years, and included both men and women.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.05
Confidence Interval
95% CI not specified
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website