Cited by 293Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationWorkplace Health and Well-being

Randomised controlled trial of integrated care to reduce disability from chronic low back pain in working and private life

Open access
Lambeek, L. C, van Mechelen, W., Knol, D. L, Loisel, P., Anema, J. R·2010·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an integrated care programme, combining a patient directed and a workplace directed intervention, for patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN: Population based randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care (10 physiotherapy practices, one occupational health service, one occupational therapy practice) and secondary care (five hospitals). PARTICIPANTS: 134 adults aged 18-65 sick listed for at least 12 weeks owing to low back pain. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to usual care (n=68) or integrated care (n=66). Integrated care consisted of a workplace intervention based on participatory ergonomics, involving a supervisor, and a graded activity programme based on cognitive behavioural principles. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the duration of time off work (work disability) due to low back pain until full sustainable return to work. Secondary outcome measures were intensity of pain and functional status. RESULTS: The median duration until sustainable return to work was 88 days in the integrated care group compared with 208 days in the usual care group (P=0.003). Integrated care was effective on return to work (hazard ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 2.8, P=0.004). After 12 months, patients in the integrated care group improved significantly more on functional status compared with patients in the usual care group (P=0.01). Improvement of pain between the groups did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: The integrated care programme substantially reduced disability due to chronic low back pain in private and working life. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN28478651.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.c1035

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cats-Baril WL, Frymoyer JW. The economics of spinal disorders. In: Frymoyer JW, ed. The adult spine: principles of practice. Raven Press, 1991.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lambeek, L. C., van Mechelen, W., Knol, D. L., Loisel, P., & Anema, J. R.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Anema, J. R
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2010-03-16
Volume
340
Issue
mar16 1
Pages
c1035-c1035
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2028702370
Cited by
293
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 27
FWCI
21.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • ZonMw
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • Instituut Gak
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (FRN53909)
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
chronic low back pain, integrated care, return to work, sick leave, work disability, participatory ergonomics, workplace interventions, cognitive behavioral therapy, functional status, pain intensity, occupational health
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Female, Persons with Disabilities, Disabled Persons, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Occupational Health Services, Occupational Therapy, Patient Compliance, Surveys and Questionnaires, Rehabilitation, Vocational, Program Evaluation, Treatment Outcome, Low Back Pain, Delivery of Health Care, Integrated, Physical Therapy Modalities, Young Adult

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