Low Back Pain Prevalence and Related Workplace Psychosocial Risk Factors: A Study Using Data From the 2010 National Health Interview Survey

Abstract

Objectives The objectives of this study were to estimate prevalence of low back pain, to investigate associations between low back pain and a set of emerging workplace risk factors and to identify worker groups with an increased vulnerability for low back pain in the US. Methods The data used for this study came from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), which was designed to collect data on health conditions and related risk factors obtained from the US civilian population. The variance estimation method was used to compute weighted data for prevalence of low back pain. Multivariable logistic regression analyses stratified by sex and age were performed to determine the odds ratios (ORs) and the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for low back pain. The examined work-related psychosocial risk factors included work-family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment and job insecurity. Work hours, occupation and other work organizational factors (non-standard work arrangements and alternative shifts) were also examined. Results The prevalence rate of self-reported low back pain in previous three months among workers in the U.S. was 25.7% in 2010. Female or older workers were at increased risk of experiencing low back pain. We found significant associations between low back pain and a set of psychosocial factors, including work-family imbalance (OR 1.27, CI 1.15–1.41), exposure to hostile work (OR 1.39, CI 1.25–1.55), and job insecurity (OR 1.44, CI 1.24–1.67), while controlling for demographic characteristics and other health related factors. Older workers who had non-standard work arrangements were more likely to report low back pain. Females who worked 41–45 hours per week and younger workers who worked over 60 hours per week had an increased risk for low back pain. Workers from several occupation groups, including, male healthcare practitioners, female and younger healthcare support workers, and female farming, fishing and forestry workers had an increased risk of low back pain. Conclusions This study linked low back pain to work-family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment, job insecurity, long work hours and certain occupation groups. These factors should be considered by employers, policy makers, and healthcare practitioners who are concerned about the impact of low back pain in workers.

Study of acupuncture for low back pain in recent 20 years: a bibliometric analysis via CiteSpace

“…The prevalence among workers was found to have reached 25.7% in the USA 2. Nonspecific LBP is one of the main problems contributing to the disease burden worldwide 3.…”

A novel method in assessing lower limb motor function

“…The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery 27 (2)…”

Acupuncture – Basic Research and Clinical Application

“…Items shown in bold red type appear in the same deciles both NOW and THEN; those underlined appear in Most "Yes" responses and Least "No" responses (NOW or THEN), or vice versa. (60) Age (59) Sceptical (57) Willing to follow advice (9) Central sensitisn (13) Able to relax (14) Alexithymia (15) Psychotic (15) Self-motivated (15) Ethnicity (73) Gender (68) Education (56) Relnship status (53) Gender issues (50) Age (47) Willing to follow advice (7) Commitment (14) General health (14) Openness (16) Self-motivated (16) Exercise 17DK Alexithymia (78) Gender issues (52) Central sensitsn (51) TCM pattern (47) Child poverty (45) Character when young (44) Willing to follow advice (5) Able to relax (6) Age (6) Negativity 7Gender (7) Self-motivated (8) a gender, character when young, childhood poverty and extraverted/introverted. Two of these also appear under "Fewest responses (THEN)".…”

“…Individual patient diagnosis emerges as a priority with regard to response/non-response, with consensus found across many areas and specifically with regard to depression (see, for example, 11.18.c/4 and 11.18.c/18) that the innate and unique characteristics of each individual patient are the deciding factor with regard to response level. There are repeated pleas for the diagnostic specificity of the medicine (such as Respondent 63's answers above) and acknowledgement of the non-specific treatment effects known to accompany it [47,53,54].…”