Risk and Prognostic Factors of Low Back Pain

Halonen, Jaana I.; Shiri, Rahman; Hanson, Linda L. Magnusson; Lallukka, Tea

doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000003052

Cited by 26 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Individual factors include obesity, age [5], smoking, low educational level [2], high pain levels and disability [2,6]. Psychosocial causes involve stress [7], layoff anxiety, depressive disorders, negative emotions [8], low healthcare quality, and unemployment [9]. Significant productionrelated risk factors are turns and bending motions of a worker's torso, lifting and carrying weights [10,11], static workplace posture [11,12], vibration at a workplace [13], low work qualification, monotony of performed work, and uniformity of work operations [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lower back pain at workplace: prevalence and risk factors

Goncharenko¹,

Komleva²,

Chekhonatsky³

2020

Russ Open Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective — analysis of lower back pain (LBP) prevalence and risk factors for its development in employees with different conditions at their workplace, depending on their age, length of service, occupational factors, and physical activity. Material and Methods — As a result of a simultaneous cross-sectional study, 3300 employees with different conditions at their workplace were examined. To study the relationships between LBP prevalence and risk factors, we used the results of employees’ survey and physical examination, along with the data on their physical activity and working conditions. Results — The workplace posture was the most common production-related risk factor for developing LBP. The second most common risk factor was the weight of the load being lifted and carried, followed by general vibration at a workplace. The least significant factor was a bending motion. According to our data, LBP prevalence in all observation groups was increasing with both age and length of employment. Over 50% of those working in hazardous conditions at the age of 50 yo and higher had LBP. Low physical activity at a workplace led to a statistically significant increase in the chances of LBP emergence. Conclusion — In employees without exposure to harmful risk factors in the form of physical exertion and general vibration, the prevalence of LBP was significantly lower than in workers in harmful working conditions. The combined effect of static and dynamic physical activities at a workplace had a more pronounced negative impact on workers’ health. Low physical activity was a significant risk factor for LBP development.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lower back pain at workplace: prevalence and risk factors

Goncharenko¹,

Komleva²,

Chekhonatsky³

2020

Russ Open Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, we deem the criteria of this lifting task an important distinguishing feature of our study. Ground level asymmetrical lifts are where risk of injury is reported to be greatest and often have not been included in previous research [38][39][40]. Most occupational lifting is not from an optimal position directly in front of the body [41], and the repeated 100 lift task allowed for the analysis of biomechanical changes over time between groups.…”

Section: Summary Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring lumbar and lower limb kinematics and kinetics for evidence that lifting technique is associated with LBP

Saraceni

Campbell

et al. 2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To investigate if lumbar and lower limb kinematics or kinetics are different between groups with and without a history of LBP during lifting. Secondly, to investigate relationships between biomechanical variables and pain ramp during repeated lifting. Methods 21 LBP and 20 noLBP participants completed a 100-lift task, where lumbar and lower limb kinematics and kinetics were measured during lifting, with a simultaneous report of LBP intensity every 10 lifts. Lifts were performed in a laboratory setting, limiting ecological validity. Results The LBP group used a different lifting technique to the noLBP group at the beginning of the task (slower and more squat-like). Kinetic differences at the beginning included less peak lumbar external anterior shear force and greater peak knee power demonstrated by the LBP group. However, at the end of the task, both groups lifted with a much more similar technique that could be classified as more stoop-like and faster. Peak knee power remained greater in the LBP group throughout and was the only kinetic difference between groups at the end of the lifting task. While both groups lifted using a more comparable technique at the end, the LBP group still demonstrated a tendency to perform a slower and more squat-like lift throughout the task. Only one of 21 variables (pelvic tilt at box lift-off), was associated with pain ramp in the LBP group. Conclusions: Workers with a history of LBP, lift with a style that is slower and more squat-like than workers without any history of LBP. Common assumptions that LBP is associated with lumbar kinematics or kinetics such as greater lumbar flexion or greater forces were not observed in this study, raising questions about the current paradigm around ‘safe lifting’.

show abstract

“…For each question, there were six response alternatives: never, rarely, few times per month, 1–2 times per week, 3–4 times per week, and 5 or more times per week. We defined disturbed sleep as having one or more sleep problems 3–4 times a week or more [ 37 , 40 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Home and Workplace Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status and Behavior-related Health: A Within-individual Analysis

Raza

Claeson

Hanson

et al. 2021

Annals of Behavioral Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The influence of individual and home neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) on health-related behaviors have been widely studied, but the majority of these studies have neglected the possible impact of the workplace neighborhood SES. Objective To examine within-individual associations between home and work place neighborhood SES and health-related behaviors in employed individuals. Methods We used participants from the Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health who responded to a minimum of two surveys between 2012 and 2018. Data included 12,932 individuals with a total of 35,332 observations. We used fixed-effects analysis with conditional logistic regression to examine within-individual associations of home, workplace, as well as time-weighted home and workplace neighborhood SES index, with self-reported obesity, physical activity, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, sedentary lifestyle, and disturbed sleep. Results After adjustment for covariates, participants were more likely to engage in risky alcohol consumption when they worked in a workplace that was located in the highest SES area compared to time when they worked in a workplace that was located in the lowest SES area (adjusted odds ratios 1.98; 95% confidence interval: 1.12 to 3.49). There was an indication of an increased risk of obesity when individuals worked in the highest compared to the time when they worked in the lowest neighborhood SES area (1.71; 1.02–2.87). No associations were observed for the other outcomes. Conclusion These within-individual comparisons suggest that workplace neighborhood SES might have a role in health-related behaviors, particularly alcohol consumption.

show abstract

Risk and Prognostic Factors of Low Back Pain

Cited by 26 publications

References 34 publications

Lower back pain at workplace: prevalence and risk factors

Lower back pain at workplace: prevalence and risk factors

Exploring lumbar and lower limb kinematics and kinetics for evidence that lifting technique is associated with LBP

Home and Workplace Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status and Behavior-related Health: A Within-individual Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About