ACE Report Cover
Multidisciplinary or brief intervention in the low back clinic to sustain return to work?
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descarregar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descarregar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
PHYSICAL THERAPY & REHAB
Multidisciplinary or brief intervention in the low back clinic to sustain return to work ?
Verified
This report has been verified by one or more authors of the original publication.

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2013;1(11):206 BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Aug 25;13:156. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-156.
Autores contribuintes

C Jensen OK Jensen CV Nielsen

351 patients on sick leave for 3 to 16 weeks due to low back pain were randomized to receive a brief hospital-based intervention or a multidisciplinary intervention. The results of the study indicate that the patients that underwent a brief hospital-based intervention required significantly fewer sick leave weeks than the patients that underwent the multidisciplinary intervention during the first year follow-up. The difference became insignificant by the second year follow-up. Work related autonomy and security modified the effects of the interventions on return to work rates. No significant differences in return to work rates, return to work status, and sick leave relapse were found.


Detalhes do financiamento da publicação +
Financiamento:
Non-Industry funded
Patrocinador:
The Danish Working Environment Research Fund
Conflitos:
None disclosed

Risco de viés

5,5/10

Critérios de notificação

15/20

Índice de Fragilidade

N/A

Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?

Was allocation adequately concealed?

Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?

Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?

Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?

Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?

Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?

Sim = 1

Incerto = 0,5

Não relevante = 0

Não = 0

A Avaliação dos Critérios de Relato avalia a transparência com que os autores relatam as caraterísticas metodológicas e do ensaio na publicação. A avaliação está dividida em cinco categorias que são apresentadas de seguida.

2/4

Aleatorización

3/4

Medición de resultados

2/4

Inclusión / exclusión

4/4

Descripción de la terapia

4/4

Estadísticas

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65

O Índice de Fragilidade é uma ferramenta que auxilia na interpretação de achados significativos, fornecendo uma medida de força para um resultado. O Índice de Fragilidade representa o número de eventos consecutivos que precisam de ser adicionados a um resultado dicotómico para que o resultado deixe de ser significativo. Um número pequeno representa um resultado mais fraco e um número grande representa um resultado mais forte.

Porque é que este estudo era necessário agora?

A previous study examining the effects of a brief intervention and multidisciplinary intervention on sick leave due to low back pain revealed that return to work rate, disability, and pain were not significantly different at the 1 year follow-up. The results did disclose that the patients who had autonomous and secure work were able to return to work more quickly after a brief intervention, whereas the patients who did not have autonomous and secure work were able to return to work more quickly after a multidisciplinary intervention. In order to determine the sustainability of return to work, this study assessed duration until return to work, number of weeks on sick leave, and return to work status among low back pain patients who received a brief intervention or multidisciplinary intervention.

Qual era a principal questão de investigação?

Does a brief intervention or multidisciplinary intervention result in improved sustainability of return to work among patients with low back pain through reduced duration until return to work, decreased number of weeks on sick leave, and improved return to work status, 2 years after treatment?

Caraterísticas do estudo +
População:
351 patients between the ages of 16 and 60 years on sick leave for 3 to 16 weeks due to low back pain.
Intervenção:
Brief hospital-based intervention (described in previous study) (Mean age: 41.9 (31.5 to 52.3) years) (n=175).
Comparação:
Multidisciplinary intervention (described in previous study) (Mean age: 42.1 (31.6 to 52.6) years) (n=176).
Resultados:
The outcomes assessed were return to work (duration until the first 4 week period without sick leave compensation or receiving no benefits in the 52nd and 104th week after inclusion), number of weeks on sick leave, partial or full sick leave, modified job or training, and labor market exclusion.
Métodos:
RCT: prospective.
Tempo:
104 weeks (outcomes assessed at weeks 52 and 104).
Quais foram os resultados importantes?
  • During the first year, 76.0% of patients from the brief intervention group and 72.2% of patients from the multidisciplinary group returned to work for longer than 4 weeks (p=0.20). The percentage of patients that returned to work for longer than 4 weeks during the second year was slightly higher, with 80.0% of patients from the brief intervention group and 77.3% of patients from the multidisciplinary group achieving return to work abilities (p=0.22).
  • The patients in the brief intervention group required 14 sick leave weeks whereas the patients in the multidisciplinary group required 20 sick leave weeks during the first year, which was found to be clinically significant (p=0.018). The difference was no longer significant by the second year as the patients in the brief intervention group required 0 sick leave weeks and the patients in the multidisciplinary group required 1 sick leave week (p=0.29).
  • Return to work status between the patients in the brief group and the patients in the multidisciplinary group was found to be not significantly different at the 52 week follow up (65.7% and 61.4%, respectively; p=0.43) and the 104 week follow-up (61.1% and 58.0%, respectively; p=0.54).
  • From the brief intervention group, 5.7% of patients required a modified job or training and 3.4% of patients were excluded from the labour market, and from the multidisciplinary intervention group, 9.1% of patients required a modified job or training and 0.6% of patients were excluded from the labour market, during the first year. The percentage of patients that required a modified job, job training, or were excluded from the labour market increased by the 2 year follow-up (modified job or job training: 12% and 12.5%, respectively; labour market exclusion: 6.3% and 5.7%, respectively).
  • Work related autonomy and security significantly affected the effects of the brief and multidisciplinary interventions at both the 1 year (p=0.006) and 2 year (p=0.017) follow-ups. The brief intervention appeared to be more effective among the patients that had more work security and autonomy and the multidisciplinary intervention appeared to be more effective among the patients that had less work security and autonomy.
De que é que me devo lembrar mais?

The data suggests that the brief intervention is more effective among patients that are autonomous and have job security and the multidisciplinary intervention is more effective among the patients that are not autonomous and do not have job security. The brief intervention results in significantly less short term sick leave weeks than the multidisciplinary intervention, but the difference was no longer significant by the 2 year follow-up. There were no significant differences in the other sustainability outcomes between the brief intervention and multidisciplinary intervention.

Como é que isto afectará o tratamento dos meus doentes?

The study suggests that the brief intervention and multidisciplinary intervention may not result in differences in low back pain sustainability but the workplace autonomy and security may influence the effects interventions on the return to work rates. Further research using larger sample sizes is required to confirm the external validity of the findings.

AVISO LEGAL

O conteúdo desta página destina-se apenas a fins informativos e não pretende substituir o aconselhamento, diagnóstico ou tratamento médico profissional. Se necessitar de tratamento médico, procure sempre o conselho do seu médico ou dirija-se ao serviço de urgência mais próximo. As opiniões, crenças e pontos de vista expressos pelos indivíduos no conteúdo encontrado nesta página não reflectem as opiniões, crenças e pontos de vista da OrthoEvidence.

0 de 4 artigos mensais GRATUITOS desbloqueados
Atingiu o seu limite de 4 visualizações de artigos gratuitos este mês

Aceda à OrthoEvidence por apenas $1,99 por semana.

Mantenha-se ligado às últimas evidências. Cancele a qualquer altura.
  • Avaliações críticas dos mais recentes ensaios clínicos aleatórios de alto impacto e revisões sistemáticas em ortopedia
  • Acesso ao conteúdo do podcast OrthoEvidence, incluindo colaborações com o Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, entrevistas com cirurgiões reconhecidos internacionalmente e discussões em mesa redonda sobre notícias e tópicos ortopédicos
  • Subscrição do The Pulse, um boletim informativo duas vezes por semana baseado em evidências, concebido para o ajudar a tomar melhores decisões clínicas
Upgrade
Close Dialog
Bem-vindo de volta!
Esqueceu-se da palavra-passe?
Comece hoje o seu teste GRATUITO!

A sua conta será afiliada a
e inclui acesso gratuito ao OrthoEvidence


OU
Esqueceu-se da palavra-passe?

OU
Verifique o seu e-mail

Se existir uma conta com o endereço de e-mail fornecido, ser-lhe-á enviado um e-mail de reposição da palavra-passe. Se não vir uma mensagem de correio eletrónico, verifique a sua pasta de spam ou de lixo eletrónico.

Para obter mais assistência, contacte a nossa equipa de apoio.

Inicie sessão para ativar esta funcionalidade

Para aceder a esta funcionalidade, tem de iniciar sessão numa conta OrthoEvidence ativa. Inicie a sessão ou crie uma conta de avaliação GRATUITA.

Traduzir o Relatório ACE

A OrthoEvidence utiliza um serviço de tradução de terceiros para tornar o conteúdo acessível em vários idiomas. Tenha em atenção que, embora sejam feitos todos os esforços para garantir a exatidão, as traduções podem nem sempre ser perfeitas.

Como citar isto ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Multidisciplinary or brief intervention in the low back clinic to sustain return to work?. OE Journal. 2013;1(11):206. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/multidisciplinary-or-brief-intervention-in-the-low-back-clinic-to-sustain-return-to-work

Copie a citação
Inicie sessão para ativar esta funcionalidade

Para aceder a esta funcionalidade, tem de iniciar sessão numa conta OrthoEvidence ativa. Inicie a sessão ou crie uma conta de avaliação GRATUITA.

Funcionalidade de Membro Premium

Para aceder a esta funcionalidade, tem de ter sessão iniciada numa conta Premium da OrthoEvidence.

Partilhe isto ACE Report