Cougot B, Petit A, Paget C, Roedlich C, Fleury-Bahi G, Fouquet M, Menu P, Dubois C, Geraut C, Roquelaure Y, Tripodi D
External Consultation on Occupational and Environmental Health, Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, Nantes University Hospital, 5 rue du Doyen Boquien, Nantes, F 44 093 France ; Laboratory of Psychology of Pays de la Loire (LPPL - UPRES EA 4638), Nantes University - Faculty of Psychology, Nantes, F 44 312 France.
Laboratory of Ergonomics & Epidemiology in Occupational Health, LEEST, UA-InVS - IFR 132, UPRES EA 4336 Faculty of Medicine, University of Angers, Angers, F 49 000 France.
J Occup Med Toxicol. 2015 Oct 29;10:40. doi: 10.1186/s12995-015-0082-5. eCollection 2015.
Many factors influence the return to work of workers with chronic low back pain (CLBP). They have been said to vary according to socio-professional group. This study first aimed to compare prognostic factors influencing the return to work of CLBP healthcare workers (HCWs) and other workers (non-HCWs) after rehabilitation coupled with an occupational intervention. The second objective was to improve the evolution of indicators such as clinical examination, psychosocial impact and pain impact.
Between 2007 and 2012, a cohort of 217 CLBP workers (54.8 %-women; mean age = 41.3 ± 9.5 years, 118 non-HCWs; 99 HCWs mainly from the public sector) was included in an ambulatory rehabilitation program (standard physiotherapy or intensive network physiotherapy) coupled with an occupational intervention. Workers completed a questionnaire and had a clinical examination at baseline and after 24 months' follow up. Physical, social and occupational data was collected at the same time. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate prognostic factors for return to work and compare the two worker populations.
There was no difference between groups for the rate of OP (occupational physician) intervention or type of physiotherapy. 77.3 % of workers returned to work after 2 years following inclusion. To be an HCW (OR 0.1; 95 % CI [0.03-0.34]), to have less than 112 sick- leave days (OR 1.00; 95 % CI [0.93-1.00]), a small fingertip-floor distance (OR 0.96; 95 % CI [0.93-0.99]), a low anxiety/depression score (OR 0.97; 95 % CI [0.95-1.00]), a low impact of CLBP on daily life (OR 0.96; 95 % CI [0.93-1.00]), and on quality of life (OR 0.98; 95 % CI [0.95-1.00]) at baseline were statistically associated with return to work after 2 years of follow up. Only the profession (workplace) was statistically associated with return to work after 2 years of follow up using multivariate analysis.
To our knowledge, this is the first cohort study concerning predictive factors of RTW among CLBP workers after 2 years of follow up. Interventions in the work environment did not seem to predict job retention significantly. But only 50 % of the employees in both groups (HCW and non-HCW) had one intervention at their workplace after 2 years. This study underlined the fact that the type of physiotherapy with a well-trained physiotherapist used to take care of CLBP could not impact on the RTW forecast. To develop these initial results, it might be interesting to study the comparison between private and public sectors and to randomize the physiotherapeutic intervention.
许多因素影响慢性下腰痛(CLBP)患者的重返工作岗位情况。据说这些因素会因社会职业群体的不同而有所差异。本研究的首要目的是比较康复联合职业干预后,影响CLBP医护人员(HCWs)和其他工作人员(非HCWs)重返工作岗位的预后因素。第二个目标是改善临床检查、心理社会影响和疼痛影响等指标的变化情况。
2007年至2012年间,217名CLBP患者(54.8%为女性;平均年龄=41.3±9.5岁,118名非HCWs;99名HCWs主要来自公共部门)被纳入一项门诊康复计划(标准物理治疗或强化网络物理治疗)并联合职业干预。患者在基线期和随访24个月后完成一份问卷并接受临床检查。同时收集身体、社会和职业数据。进行统计分析以评估重返工作岗位的预后因素,并比较这两类工作人员群体。
职业医师(OP)干预率或物理治疗类型在两组之间没有差异。纳入研究后2年,77.3%的患者重返工作岗位。在随访2年后,成为一名HCW(比值比[OR]0.1;95%置信区间[CI][0.03 - 0.34])、病假天数少于112天(OR 1.00;95% CI[0.93 - 1.00])、指尖到地面距离小(OR 0.96;95% CI[0.93 - 0.99])、焦虑/抑郁评分低(OR 0.97;95% CI[0.95 - 1.00])、基线时CLBP对日常生活的影响低(OR 0.96;95% CI[0.93 - 1.00])以及对生活质量的影响低(OR 0.98;95% CI[0.95 - 1.00])与重返工作岗位在统计学上相关。使用多变量分析时,仅职业(工作场所)与随访2年后重返工作岗位在统计学上相关。
据我们所知,这是第一项对CLBP患者随访2年后重返工作岗位的预测因素进行的队列研究。工作环境中的干预似乎并不能显著预测工作保留情况。但两组(HCW和非HCW)中只有50%的员工在2年后在其工作场所接受了一次干预。本研究强调了这样一个事实,即由训练有素的物理治疗师进行的物理治疗类型对重返工作岗位的预测没有影响。为了拓展这些初步结果,研究私营部门和公共部门之间的比较并对物理治疗干预进行随机化可能会很有意思。