Qualification for prevention of musculoskeletal diseases. Low back pain example.

• Authors: Ernest Wiśniewski , Aleksandra Zubrzycka , Zbigniew Wroński , Anna Hadamus
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Introduction In order to take a correct decision while qualifying for prevention programs, particularly in regard to persons with disability certificate, a detailed physiotherapeutic examination needs to be conducted. Currently practitioners are looking for methods allowing for quick assessment of patients’ health before advising prevention or treatment. This paper examines the Functional Pain Index (FPI), a tool conceived by the authors, and compares the results with the results of the anamnesis and physical examination conducted by a physiotherapist. Material and methods Sample group consisted of 206 workers with disability certificate who have been experiencing low back pain (LBP). Each person went through physiotherapeutic examination, it was concluded by a decision to either qualify them for prevention program or advise LBP treatment. This result was compared with the FPI questionnaire and qualification based on the result produced by the questionnaire. Results The FPI based on three variables embedded in the questionnaire showed no statistically significant difference compared to a similar index based on the documentation produced by physiotherapeutic examination. Following the latter, 87 persons were qualified for prevention programs, with the FPI in this group ranging on average from 31.9 to 36.8 points, depending on the applied FPI variant. 119 persons were advised physiotherapeutic treatment or medical consultation, with the FPI in this group ranging from 51.8 to 57.5 points. It has been also shown that there is a statistically significant correlation between a decision of a physiotherapist to advise LBP prevention program and the FPI score in all its variants (p<0.001). Conclusions High consistency between the FPI based on the questionnaire and the index based on physiotherapeutic examination shows that the questionnaire is highly reliable. The FPI questionnaire can be a good alternative for qualifying patients for prevention programs, with questionnaire-based qualification for prevention program triggered in 0-40% range of the FPI.

Keywords

EN

Occupational disease; Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders; Low Back Pain; Functional Pain Index validity

• Journal: Advances in Rehabilitation
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 32
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 13-19

Dates

published

2019-03-20

Contributors

author

Ernest Wiśniewski

author

Aleksandra Zubrzycka

author

Zbigniew Wroński

author

Anna Hadamus

References

• Bevan S. Economic impact of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) on work in Europe. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2015 Jun;29(3):356-73.
• Van Eerd D, Munhall C, Irvin E, Rempel D, Brewer S, van der Beek A et al. Effectiveness of workplace interventions in the prevention of upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders and symptoms: an update of the evidence. Occup Environ Med. 2016 Jan;73(1):62-70.
• Oliveira CB, MaherCG, Pinto RZ, Traeger AC, Lin CWC, Chenot JF et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care: an updated overview. Eur Spine J. 2018 Nov;27(11): 2791-803.
• Bugajska J i wsp. Nabyte zespoły dysfunkcji układu mięśniowo-szkieletowego u pracowników w świetle badań epidemiologicznych. Med Pr. 2011;62(2):153–160.
• Grönblad M, Järvinen E, Hurri H, Hupli M, Karaharju EO. Relationship of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) with three dynamic physical tests in a group of patients with chronic low-back and leg pain. Clin J Pain. 1994 Sep;10(3):197-203.
• Majid K, Truumees E. Epidemiology and Natural History of Low Back Pain. Semin Spine Surg. 2008;20:87-92.
• Manek NJ, MacGregor AJ. Epidemiology of the back disorders: prevalence, risk factors and prognosis, Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2005 Mar;17(2):134-40.
• Malińska M. Prezenteizm – zjawisko nieefektywnej obecności w pracy [Presenteeism]. Med Pr. 2013;63(3):439-47.
• Johns G. Presenteeism in the workplace: A review and research agenda. J Organ Behav. 2010 Jul;31:519-42.
• Jakubczyk M, Wrona W, Macioch T, Golicki D, Niewada M, Hermankowski T. Koszty pośrednie w ocenie technologii medycznych. Pol. Med. J. 2010;28(163):42-5.
• Hemp P. Presenteeism: At work – but out of it. Harv Bus Rev. 2004 Oct;82:49-58.
• Leerar P, Boissonnault W, Domholdt E, Roddey T. Documentation of Red Flags by Physical Therapists for Patients with Low Back Pain. J Man Manip Ther. 2007;15(1):42–9.
• Burton K, Balagué F, Cardon G, Eriksen HR, Henrotin Y, Lahad A, et al. European guidelines for prevention in low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2006 Mar;15(Suppl 2):s136–68.
• Rantonen J, Karppinen J, Vehtari A,Luoto S, Viikari-Juntura E, Hupli M et al. Effectiveness of three interventions for secondary prevention of low back pain in the occupational health setting - a randomised controlled trial with a natural course control. BMC Public Health. 2018 May 8;18(1):598.
• Green BN, Johnson CD, Haldeman S, Griffith E, Clay MB, Kane EJ et al. A scoping review of biopsychosocial risk factors and co-morbidities for common spinal disorders. PLoS One. 2018 Jun 1;13(6):e0197987.
• Green BN, Johnson CD, Haldeman S, Kane EJ, Clay MB, Griffith EA et al. The Global Spine Care Initiative: public health and prevention interventions for common spine disorders in low- and middle-income communities. Eur Spine J. 2018 Sep;27(-Suppl 6):838-50.

Identifiers

DOI

10.5114/areh.2018.83390