A Population-Based, Randomized Clinical Trial on Back Pain Management
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Population-based randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To develop and test a model of management of subacute back pain, to prevent prolonged disability. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The present management of back pain seems inadequate, and development of innovative models has been urged. METHODS: A model for the treatment of subacute work-related back pain has been developed and evaluated in a population-based randomized clinical trial. Workers (n = 130) from eligible workplaces in the Sherbrooke area (N = 31), who had been absent from work for more than 4 weeks for back pain, were randomized, based on their workplace, in one of four treatment groups: usual care, clinical intervention, occupational intervention, and full intervention (a combination of the last two). The duration of absence from regular work and from any work was evaluated using survival analysis. Functional status and pain were compared at study entry and after 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: The full intervention group returned to regular work 2.41 times faster than the usual care intervention group (95% confidence interval 1.19-4.89; P < 0.01). The specific effect of the occupational intervention accounted for the most important part of this result, with a rate ratio of return to regular work of 1.91 (95% confidence interval = 1.18-3.10; P < 0.01). Pain and disability scales demonstrated either a statistically significant reduction or a trend toward reduction in the three intervention groups, compared with the trend in the usual care intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Close association of occupational intervention with clinical care is of primary importance in impeding progression toward chronicity of low back pain.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Lambeek et al. and Loisel et al. reported that multidisciplinary occupational rehabilitation led to increased return to work and reduced disability, but with little effect on pain.
“In contrast, Lambeek et al. [6] and Loisel et al. [7] reported that multidisciplinary occupational rehabilitation led to increased return to work and reduced disability, but with little effect on pain.”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 451
- Authors
- Loisel, P., Abenhaim, L., Durand, P., Esdaile, J. M., Suissa, S., Gosselin, L., Simard, R., Turcotte, J., & Lemaire, J.
- Affiliations
- Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
- Jewish General Hospital (CA)
- Université de Montréal (CA)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Loisel, Patrick
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 1997-12
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 2911-2918
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2000040333
- Cited by
- 451
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 5.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Spine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Keywords
- subacute low back pain, work-related back pain, return to work, occupational intervention, clinical intervention, disability prevention, absenteeism
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Back Pain, Decision Support Techniques, Disability Evaluation, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Occupational Diseases, Proportional Hazards Models, Treatment Outcome, Disease Management
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