Combined musculoskeletal pain in the upper and lower body: associations with occupational mechanical and psychosocial exposures
- 254 Downloads
Pain in more than one site is common in working populations. We aimed to characterise combined pain (pain in the upper and lower body) and to evaluate whether the prevalence of combined pain is positively related to combined occupational mechanical exposures to the upper and lower body and to high psychosocial job strain.
This cross-sectional study was based on questionnaire data from the Musculoskeletal Research Database at the Danish Ramazzini Centre. The study included 14,081 men and 20,173 women. Occupational exposures were assessed by job exposure matrices. We analysed the prevalence of pain limited to the upper body, pain limited to the lower body, and combined pain in relation to occupational exposures using Poisson regression.
During the last year, 23.2 % of the men and 33.9 % of the women reported combined pain, which was characterised by somatisation, illness worrying, and low SF-36 scores. For men, the adjusted prevalence ratio for combined pain was 1.51 [95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) 1.40–1.64] in relation to exposures limited to the upper body and 2.24 (95 % CI 2.11–2.39) in relation to combined exposures. For women, the corresponding adjusted prevalence ratios were 1.56 (95 % CI 1.50–1.63) and 1.55 (95 % CI 1.50–1.61). High job strain was related to pain among men, only.
Combined pain may in part be explained by local effects of occupational mechanical exposures acting at more than one site.
KeywordsLifting Multi-site pain Posture Psychosocial exposure Repetitive work
The Danish Working Environment Research Fund funded the establishment of the Musculoskeletal Research Database at the Danish Ramazzini Centre (Grant No. 31-2009-09). We would like to thank Annett Dalbøge and Tine Steen Rubak, who made their job exposure matrices available for the study.
Conflict of interest
- Bergman S, Herrström P, Högström K, Petersson IF, Svensson B, Jacobsson LT (2001) Chronic musculoskeletal pain, prevalence rates, and sociodemographic associations in a Swedish population study. J Rheumatol 28(6):1369–1377Google Scholar
- Bjørner JB, Damsgaard MT, Watt T, Bech P, Rasmussen NK, Kristensen TS, Modvig J, Thunedborg K (1997) Dansk manual til SF-36 [Danish manual on SF-36]. Lif Lægemiddelindustriforeningen, KøbenhavnGoogle Scholar
- Croft P, Rigby AS, Boswell R, Schollum J, Silman A (1993) The prevalence of chronic widespread pain in the general population. J Rheumatol 20(4):710–713Google Scholar
- Hjøllund NH, Larsen FB, Andersen JH (2007) Register-based follow-up of social benefits and other transfer payments: accuracy and degree of completeness in a Danish interdepartmental administrative database compared with a population-based survey. Scand J Public Health 35(5):497–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Karasek R, Theorell T (1990) Healthy work: stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kivimäki M, Leino-Arjas P, Virtanen M, Elovainio M, Keltikangas-Järvinen L, Puttonen S, Vartia M, Brunner E, Vahtera J (2004) Work stress and incidence of newly diagnosed fibromyalgia: prospective cohort study. J Psychosom Res 57(5):417–422Google Scholar
- Kristensen TR (2010) Sickness absence. The importance of socioeconomic status, job strain, iso-strain and effort-reward imbalance. Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- Lee J, Tan C, Chia K (2009) A practical guide for multivariate analysis of dichotomous outcomes. Ann Acad Med Singapore 38(8):714–719Google Scholar
- Macfarlane GJ, Croft PR, Schollum J, Silman AJ (1996) Widespread pain: Is an improved classification possible? J Rheumatol 23(9):1628–1632Google Scholar
- Wolfe F, Smythe HA, Yunus MB, Bennett RM, Bombardier C, Goldenberg DL, Tugwell P, Campbell SM, Abeles M, Clark P et al (1990) The American College of Rheumatology 1990. Criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia. Report of the Multicenter Criteria Committee. Arthritis Rheum 33(2):160–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar