Cited by 23Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationWorkplace Health and Well-beingOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces

Pain-related factors associated with lost work days in nurses with low back pain: a cross-sectional study

Sharma, Saurab, Shrestha, Nischal, Jensen, Mark P.·2016·Scandinavian Journal of Pain

Abstract

Background and aims: Chronic low back pain is known to contribute to lost work days (LWDs) in nurses. However, there is a limited understanding of the factors that moderate the impact of low back pain (LBP) on LWDs – in particular factors that are modifiable and that could therefore be the treatment targets of interventions designed to help nurses more effectively manage LBP. This study aims to identify pain-related factors that are associated with LWDs in nurses with LBP, in order to inform the development of interventions that could reduce LBP-related work dysfunction and improve patient care. Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted on 111 female nurses who were asked to answer questions regarding demographic information, work history, presence or absence of LBP, number of LWDs due to illness, and a number of factors that could potentially be related to LWDs including: (1) average and worst pain intensity; (2) the temporal pattern of LBP (constant versus intermittent); (3) pain aggravating factors (lifting, bending, walking, and standing); and (4) pain alleviating factors (medications, rest, exercise). Results: Sixty-five percent ( n = 72) of the sample reported LBP. Constancy of pain and having a LBP problem that was alleviated by rest were significantly associated with the number of LWDs, while maximum and average LBP intensity were only weakly associated. Conclusion: The findings provide important new information regarding whatis (and of equal importance) what is not associated with LWDs in nurses with LBP. Implications: To effectively reduce LBP-related work disability, interventions may need to teach nurses how to better manage constant pain and remain active despite pain, rather than focus on pain reduction. Research to examine the potential efficacy of such treatment approaches for nurses with LBP is warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.sjpain.2015.11.007

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sharma, S., Shrestha, N., & Jensen, M. P.
Affiliations
  • Kathmandu University (NP)
  • Dhulikhel Hospital (NP)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Sharma, Saurab
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Pain
Published
2016-04-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
27-33
ISSN
  • 1877-8860 (ISSN-L)
  • 1877-8879
OpenAlex
W2205271395
Cited by
23
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Keywords
low back pain, nurses, lost workdays, work disability, pain intensity, rest, occupational pain, female nurses
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Nurses, Posture, Risk Factors, Low Back Pain, Sick Leave

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review