Cited by 41Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationWorkplace Health and Well-being

Change in pain, disability and influence of fear-avoidance in a work-focused intervention on neck and back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Marchand, Gunn Hege, Myhre, Kjersti, Leivseth, Gunnar, Sandvik, Leiv, Lau, Bjørn, Bautz-Holter, Erik, Røe, Cecilie·2015·BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Neck and back pain are among the most common causes of prolonged disability, and development of interventions with effect on pain, disability and return to work is important. Reduction of fear avoidance might be one mechanism behind improvement after interventions. The aim of the present study was to evaluate changes in pain and disability at the 12-month follow-up of patients with neck and back pain treated with a work-focused intervention compared to patients treated with standard interventions, and the influence of improvement fear avoidance beliefs during the interventions on pain, disability and return to work at 12-month follow-up. METHODS: 413 employed patients with back or neck pain referred to secondary care, and sick-listed between 4 weeks and 12 months, were randomized to a work-focused rehabilitation or control interventions. Follow-up was conducted 4 and 12 months after inclusion. The groups were compared (independent sample t-test) regarding differences in disability scores (Oswestry disability index/neck disability index) and pain (numeric rating scale) from baseline to 12-month follow-up. Changes in fear avoidance beliefs (FABQ) from baseline to 4 month follow-up were calculated, and the association between this change and return to work, pain and disability at 12 months were tested in stepwise multiple logistic regression models. RESULTS: Pain and, disability scores decreased to in both the work-focused and control intervention to 12-month follow-up, and there were no significant differences between the groups. FABQ decreased similarly in both groups to 4 month follow-up. The logistic regression model revealed an association between a reduced FABQ work score at 4 months and return to work within one year (adjusted OR 3.60, 95% CI 1.19 to 10.88). Reduced FABQ physical activity score at 4 months was associated with decreased disability after 12 months (adjusted OR (3.65. 95% CI 1.43 to 9.28). CONCLUSIONS: Short work-focused rehabilitation had the same effect on pain and disability as control interventions. Reduction in FABQ-W score after treatment seems to be an important predictor for return to work in both groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00840697.

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 · 10.1186/s12891-015-0553-y

Cites

64 of 64 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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marchand, G. H., Myhre, K., Leivseth, G., Sandvik, L., Lau, B., Bautz-Holter, E., & Røe, C.
Affiliations
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • National Institute of Occupational Health (NO)
Corresponding author
Marchand, Gunn Hege
Venue
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published
2015-04-21
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
94-94
ISSN
1471-2474 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2061918260
Cited by
41
References
64
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Norges Forskningsråd
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
neck pain, back pain, fear-avoidance beliefs, return to work, disability, pain, sick leave, Oswestry Disability Index, Neck Disability Index, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire
MeSH terms
Adult, Avoidance Learning, Back Pain, Disability Evaluation, Fear, Female, Disabled Persons, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Occupational Health, Neck Pain

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