Cited by 123Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationWorkplace Health and Well-beingMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 58 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Staying at work with chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain: a qualitative study of workers' experiences

Open access
de Vries, Haitze J, Brouwer, Sandra, Groothoff, Johan W, Geertzen, Jan HB, Reneman, Michiel F·2011·BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many people with chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain (CMP) have decreased work ability. The majority, however, stays at work despite their pain. Knowledge about workers who stay at work despite chronic pain is limited, narrowing our views on work participation. The aim of this study was to explore why people with CMP stay at work despite pain (motivators) and how they manage to maintain working (success factors). METHODS: A semi-structured interview was conducted among 21 subjects who stay at work despite CMP. Participants were included through purposeful sampling. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and imported into computer software Atlas.ti. Data was analyzed by means of thematic analysis. The interviews consisted of open questions such as: "Why are you working with pain?" or "How do you manage working while having pain?" RESULTS: A total of 16 motivators and 52 success factors emerged in the interviews. Motivators were categorized into four themes: work as value, work as therapy, work as income generator, and work as responsibility. Success factors were categorized into five themes: personal characteristics, adjustment latitude, coping with pain, use of healthcare services, and pain beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: Personal characteristics, well-developed self-management skills, and motivation to work may be considered to be important success factors and prerequisites for staying at work, resulting in behaviors promoting staying at work such as: raising adjustment latitude, changing pain-coping strategies, organizing modifications and conditions at work, finding access to healthcare services, and asking for support. Motivators and success factors for staying at work may be used for interventions in rehabilitation and occupational medicine, to prevent absenteeism, or to promote a sustainable return to work. This qualitative study has evoked new hypotheses about staying at work; quantitative studies on staying at work are needed to obtain further evidence.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This qualitative study explored why workers with chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain (CMP) stay at work despite pain and how they manage to do so. It identified 16 motivators and 52 success factors, organized into four motivator themes and five success-factor themes.

Key findings

  • Among 21 workers with CMP (9 male, 12 female), interviews yielded 16 motivators grouped as work as value, work as therapy, work as income generator, and work as responsibility.
  • Interviews also yielded 52 success factors grouped as personal characteristics, adjustment latitude, coping with pain, use of healthcare services, and pain beliefs.
  • Participants had mean current pain intensity 4.5 (SD 1.9) and average pain 5.3 (SD 1.7) on an 11-point NRS; mean Pain Disability Index was 20.3 (SD 8.2), and mean occupational PDI was 3.7 (SD 1.5).
  • Most participants had pain for more than 5 years (18/21, 86%) and no work absence due to CMP in the previous year (17/21, 81%).

Methods

  • Individual semi-structured interviews lasting 45–90 minutes were conducted with 21 participants with CMP, recruited by purposeful sampling from the “Working with Pain” study; inclusion required CMP >6 months, age 20–60, employment ≥20 hours/week for 12 months prior, and CMP-related absence ≤5% of potential working hours.
  • Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, imported into Atlas.ti, and analyzed using thematic analysis guided by the questions “why” and “how”; coding was done independently by the first and second authors, with consultation and peer debriefing.
  • Data collection continued until saturation, which was reached after 21 participants; pain intensity was measured with an 11-point numeric rating scale and disability with the Pain Disability Index.

Limitations

  • Stated by the authors: no participants aged 20–30 were included, and most had pain for more than 5 years, so conclusions may be less generalizable to younger people or those with a shorter pain history.
  • Stated by the authors: the Dutch social security system is relatively generous, so generalization to countries with less generous systems is uncertain; participants were selected because they stayed at work despite CMP, and their mean occupational PDI was 3.7, so results cannot simply be generalized to return-to-work populations, and comparison with workers who did not stay at work would have strengthened the results.
  • Evident from the text: recruitment through newspaper and patient-association announcements may have selected a self-motivated sample, and the qualitative cross-sectional design cannot establish causal relationships.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2474-12-126

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Figure 1 Thematic content of motivators and success factors for staying at work with chronic pain.
Figure 1 Thematic content of motivators and success factors for staying at work with chronic pain.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

52 Own result · 29 Not checked yet · 22 Own method · 20 Own interpretation · 1 Supported so far · 1 No basis given

Verify all 57 references — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 40
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 39
69 of 69
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Knowledge about workers who stay at work despite chronic pain is limited.

    “Knowledge about workers who stay at work despite chronic pain is limited, narrowing our views on work participation.”
    “Understanding workers who stay at work despite pain is limited.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A qualitative study of SAW in working men and women with CMP is not yet available.

    “However, a qualitative study of SAW in working men and women with CMP is not yet available.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Each explanatory model of sick leave and work attendance has shortcomings.

    “Each model seems to have shortcomings.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Dutch social security system is relatively generous.

    “In the Netherlands the system of social security is a relatively generous one.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Workers who stay at work despite chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain are a successful group.

    “Because of the aim of our study, which was to learn from a successful group of workers, we selected workers who worked despite CMP.”
5 of 5

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.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 62 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bloch FS, Prins R: Social security, work incapacity, and reintegration. Who returns to work and why. A six country study on work incapacity & reintegration. Edited by: Bloch FS, Prins R. 2000, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 5: 9-25.
  2. Central Statistics office: Sickness absence stabilizing last years. 2010, Dutch: Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek. Ziekteverzuim laatste jaren stabiel. CBS-publications
  3. Engers AJ, Koke A, Torenbeek M: Nederlandse Dataset Pijnrevalidatie. 2007, Hoensbroek: Stichting Revalidatie Limburg
  4. Antonovsky A: Health, Stress, and Coping: new perspectives on mental and physical health. 1979, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 123

Metadata

Authors
de Vries, H. J., Brouwer, S., Groothoff, J. W., Geertzen, J. H., & Reneman, M. F.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
Venue
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published
2011-06-03
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
126-126
ISSN
1471-2474 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2022479636
Cited by
123
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
6.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Instituut Gak
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
work participation, return to work, employee motivation, pain coping, self-management, pain beliefs, health care utilization, work modification, absenteeism prevention, occupational medicine
MeSH terms
Absenteeism, Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Chronic Disease, Employment, Female, Humans, Income, Interviews as Topic, Job Satisfaction, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Musculoskeletal Diseases, Netherlands, Pain, Social Desirability, Social Responsibility, Health Behavior, Occupational Health, Pain Threshold, Qualitative Research, Young Adult, Pain 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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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