Mechanisms for reducing low back pain: a mediation analysis of a multifaceted intervention in workers in elderly care
A multifaceted workplace intervention consisting of participatory ergonomics, physical training, and cognitive–behavioural training (CBT) has shown effectiveness for reducing low back pain (LBP). However, the mechanisms of action underlying these intervention components are not well understood.
This was a mediation analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a multifaceted intervention in 420 workers in elderly care. Mediation analysis was carried out via structural equation modelling. Potential mediators investigated were: fear-avoidance beliefs, perceived muscle strength, use of assistive devices at work and perceived physical exertion at work. LBP outcomes assessed were: days with LBP, LBP intensity and days with bothersome LBP.
There were no significant indirect effects of the intervention on LBP outcomes. There were significant effects of the intervention on both fear-avoidance measures [β = − 0.63, 95% CI (1.23, 0.03); β = − 1.03, 95% CI (− 1.70, − 0.34)] and the use of assistive devices [β = − 0.55, 95% CI (− 1.04, − 0.05)], but not on perceived muscle strength [β = − 0.18, 95% CI (− 0.50, 0.13)] or physical exertion [β = − 0.05, 95% CI (− 0.40, 0.31)]. The only potential mediator with a significant effect on LBP outcomes was physical exertion, which had a significant effect on LBP intensity [β = 0.14, 95% CI (0.04, 0.23)].
A multifaceted intervention consisting of participatory ergonomics, physical training, and CBT was able to decrease fear-avoidance beliefs and increase use of assistive devices in the workplace. However, these changes did not explain the effect of any of the intervention components on days with LBP, LBP intensity and days with bothersome LBP.
KeywordsWorkplace interventions Cognitive behavioural training Physical training Participatory ergonomics Musculoskeletal disorders Nurses’ aides
This study was funded by The Danish Working Environment Research Fund (Journal Number 201100813) and the National Prevention Fund (Journal Number 11-2-1a-113). MS is supported by a scholarship provided by the Chiropractic and Osteopathic College of Australasia (COCA) Research Limited. GM is supported by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research Seedcorn funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The trial on which this analysis is based was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency and the Ethics Committee for the regional capital of Denmark (Journal Number H-4-2012-115) and was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the trial.
- Borg GAV (1962) Physical Performance and perceived exertion. Gleerup, Lund, pp 1–32Google Scholar
- Fenner P (2013) Returning to work after an injury. Aust Fam Physician 42:182–185Google Scholar
- Nguyen TH, Randolph DC (2007) Nonspecific low back pain and return to work. Am Fam Physician 76(10):1497–502Google Scholar
- Schofield DJ, Shrestha RN, Passey ME et al (2008) Chronic disease and labour force participation among older Australians. Med J Aust 189:447–450Google Scholar
- Sjøgaard G, Justesen JB, Murray M et al (2014) A conceptual model for worksite intelligent physical exercise training-IPET-intervention for decreasing life style health risk indicators among employees: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health 14:652. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-652 CrossRefGoogle Scholar