Skip to main content
Log in

Chronic back pain and work disability: Vocational outcomes following multidisciplinary rehabilitation

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies indicate that work disabled chronic back pain patients out of work for longer than three months have a reduced probability of returning to work. The escalating personal and economic costs (indemnity and health care) associated with such long term disability have facilitated efforts at multiple levels to prevent and more effectively manage work disability. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation (MDR) targeted at return to work represents one such approach. The approach is based upon a multidimensional conceptualization of work disability and integrates medical, physical, psychological, educational and vocational interventions to increase physical function, reduce pain, increase stress coping skills and facilitate return to work. Seven outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation outcome studies for chronic back pain were identified that met the following selection criteria: 1) diagnosis of back pain, low back pain, spinal disorder (specific and nonspecific diagnosis), 2) chronic back pain of either longer than three months since injury or longer than three months absence from work, 3) use of an outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation approach that included some combination of medical management, physical conditioning, pain and stress management, vocational counseling/placement and education regarding back safety and health, and 4) work reentry was the primary focus of outcome. These were reviewed to determine the effectiveness of MDR in terms of return to work outcome. Analyses revealed that an average of 71 percent of work disabled chronic back pain patients who completed a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program were working or involved in vocational rehabilitation efforts at 12 month follow-up in contrast to an average of 44 percent in corresponding comparison groups. While these studies suggest the clinical utility of a multidisciplinary approach as compared to usual care in facilitating return to work for chronic back pain patients, the literature was characterized by several methodological limitations including the absence of randomization in the majority of studies, use of insurance company denials as control groups, heterogenous samples in terms of duration of work disability, job availability at discharge, extent of impairment and disability, age and duration of pain disorder, lack of specification as to exact treatment delivered in the control or usual care groups and varying definitions of return to work outcome. Research on predictors of return to work outcome following MDR were identified and included variables in five categories: demographics, medical history, physical findings, pain and psychological characteristics. The literature provides support for the use of integrated approaches that target the medical, physical, ergonomic and psychosocial factors that can exacerbate and/or maintain work disability. Future research should address current methodological limitations in the literature and focus on: 1) identifying critical treatment components of such approaches, 2) developing innovative screening methods to identify high risk cases to facilitate earlier more targeted efforts to assist such individuals, and 3) consider variations in the staging of various combinations of interventions in an effort to develop more cost-effective variations in the multidisciplinary approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. State of Minnesota, Department of Labor and Industry.Emergency rules relating to workers' compensation: Treatment parameters. Minnesota Statues Section 176.83, subdivision 5, parts 5221.6010 to 5221.8900.

  2. Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, the Netherlands.Measures to reduce sick leave and improve labor conditions. Department of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, Postbus 9 0801, 2509 LV Den Haag.

  3. Feuerstein M. Workers' compensation reform in New York State: A proposal to address medical, ergonomic, and psychological factors associated with work disability.J Occup Rehab 1993; 3: 125–134.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bureau of Labor Statistics.Work injuries and illnesses by selected characteristics, 1992. U.S. Department of Labor, Technical Release USDL-94-213, April 26, 1994, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Webster B, Snook S. The cost of compensable low back pain.J Occup Med 1990; 32: 13–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Feuerstein M. A multidisciplinary approach to the prevention, evaluation, and management of work disability.J Occup Rehab 1991; 1: 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Frymoyer J, Cats-Baril W. Predictors of low back pain disability.Clin Orthop Rel Res 1987; 221: 89–98.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chaffin D, Fine L, eds.A national strategy of occupational musculoskeletal injuries-implementation issues and research needs: 1991 conference summary. D.H.H.S. (NIOSH) Publication No. 93-101, Nov. 1992.

  9. Deyo R, Diehl A. Psychosocial predictors of disability in patients with low back pain.J Rheumatol 1988; 15: 1557–1564.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lancourt J, Kettelhut M. Predicting return to work for lower back pain patients receiving workers' compensation.Spine 1992; 17: 629–640.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Werneke M, Harris D, Lichter R. Clinical effectiveness of behavioral signs for screening chronic low-back pain patients in a work-oriented physical rehabilitation program.Spine 1993; 18: 2412–2418.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pope M, Anderson G, Frymoyer J, Chaffin D.Occupational low back pain: Assessment, treatment and prevention. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mayer T, Mooney V, Gatchel R.Contemporary conservative care for painful spinal disorders. Melvern, PA: Lea & Febiger, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cherkin D, Deyo R, Berg A. Evaluation of a physician education intervention to improve primary care for low back pain II: Impact on patients.Spine 1991; 16: 1173–1178.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lichter RL, Hewson J, Radke S, Blum M. Treatment of chronic low back pain: A community based comprehensive return-to-work rehabilitation program.Clin Orthop 1984; 190: 115–123.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cutler R, Fishbain D, Rosomoff H,et al. Does nonsurgical pain center treatment of chronic pain return patients to work?Spine 1994; 19: 643–652.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. McElligolt J, Miscovich S, Fielding L. Low back injury in industry: The value of a recovery program.Connecticut Med. 1989; 53: 711–715.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Linton S, Kamwendo K. Low back schools: A critical review.Phys Ther 1987; 67: 1375–1383.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. King P. Outcome analysis of work-hardening programs.Am J Occup Ther 1993; 47: 595–603.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kinney R, Gatchel R, Polatin P, Mayer T. The functional restoration approach for chronic spinal disability.J Occup Rehab 1991; 1: 235–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fishbain DA, Rosomoff HL, Goldberg M, Cutler R, Abdel-Moty E, Khalil TM, Rosomoff RS. The prediction of return to the workplace after multidisciplinary pain center treatment.Clin J Pain 1993; 9: 3–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mellin F, Harkapaa K, Vanharanta H,et al. Outcome of a multimodal treatment including intensive physical training of patients with chronic low back pain.Spine 1993; 18: 825–829.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Altmaier E, Lehmann T, Russell D,et al. The effectiveness of psychological interventions for the rehabilitation of low back pain: A randomized controlled trial evaluation.Pain 1992; 49: 329–335.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Estlander AM, Mellin G, Vanharanta H, Hupli M. Effects and follow-up of a multimodal treatment program including intensive physical training for low back pain patients.Scand J Rehab Med 1991; 23: 97–102.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cassisi J, Sypert G, Salamon A, Kapel L. Independent evaluation of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for chronic low back pain.Neurosurgery 1989; 25: 877–883.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McArthur D, Cohen M, Gottlieb H,et al. Treating chronic low back pain: I. Admission to initial follow-up, II. Long term follow-up.Pain 1987; 29: 1–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, Mayer H,et al. A prospective two-year study of functional restoration in industrial low back injury.JAMA 1987; 258: 1763–1767.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hazard R, Haugh L, Green P, Jones P. Chronic low back pain: The relationship between patient satisfaction and pain, impairment and disability outcomes.Spine 1994; 19: 881–887.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hazard RG, Fenwick JW, Kalisch SM,et al. Functional restoration with behavioral support: A one year prospective study of patients with chronic low-back pain.Spine 1989; 14: 157–161.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mayer T, Gatchel R, Kishino N,et al. Objective assessment of spine function following industrial injury: A prospective study with comparison group and one-year follow-up.Spine 1985; 10: 482–493.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mitchell R, Carmen G. Results of a multicenter trial using an intensive active exercise program for the treatment of acute soft tissue and back injuries.Spine 1994; 15: 514–521.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tollison C. Comprehensive treatment approach for lower back workers' compensation injuries.J Occup Rehab 1991; 1: 281–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sachs B, David J, Olimpo D,et al. Spinal rehabilitation by work tolerance based on objective physical capacity assessment of dysfunction: A prospective study with control subjects and twelve-month review.Spine 1990; 15: 1325–1332.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fredrickson BE, Trief PM, VanBeveren P,et al. Rehabilitation of the patient with chronic back pain: A search for outcome predictors.Spine 1988; 13: 351–353.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cairns D, Mooney V, Crane P. Spinal pain rehabilitation: Inpatient and outpatient treatment results and development of predictors for outcome.Spine 1984; 9: 91–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Feuerstein M, Callan-Harris S, Hickey P, Dyer D, Armbruster W, Carosella AM. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation of chronic work-related upper extremity disorders: Long-term effects.J Occup Med 1993; 35: 396–403.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Barnes D, Smith D, Gatchel R, Mayer T. Psychosocioeconomic predictors of treatment success/failure in chronic low-back patients.Spine 1989; 14: 427–430.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Polatin PB, Gatchel RJ, Barnes D, Mayer H, Arens C, Mayer T. A psychosociomedical prediction model of response to treatment by chronically disabled workers with lock-back pain.Spine 1989; 14: 956–961.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Carosella AM, Lackner JM, Feuerstein M. Factors associated with early discharge from a multidisciplinary work rehabilitation program for chronic low back pain.Pain 1994; 57: 69–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Spitzer WO, LeBlanc FE, Dupuis M. A scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity-related spinal disorders: A monograph for clinicians; Report of the Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders.Spine 1987; 75: S3-S59.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Aickin M. A program for balancing the allocation of subjects to treatment in a clinical trial.Comput Biomed Res 1982; 15: 519–524.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Nachemson A. Newest knowledge of low back pain.Clin Ortho Rel Res 1992; 279: 9–19.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Feuerstein, M., Menz, L., Zastowny, T. et al. Chronic back pain and work disability: Vocational outcomes following multidisciplinary rehabilitation. J Occup Rehab 4, 229–251 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02331618

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02331618

Key words

Navigation