OBJECTIVES: To investigate the longitudinal patterns of recovery among workers with compensated occupational back injuries. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study, with one-year follow-up via structured telephone interviews, among respondents off work because of "new" back injuries. Self-reported pain intensity was recorded at baseline and at four follow-up time points over the course of one year. Workers who answered the questionnaire on at least three occasions (n = 678) were classified into clusters according to their patterns of pain intensity over time using a two-step cluster analysis. RESULTS: Four pain recovery patterns were identified: workers with high levels of pain intensity showing no improvement over time (43%); those experiencing recovery in the first four months with no further improvement or possibly even some deterioration, in the second half year (33%); those experiencing a slow consistent recovery but still with considerable back pain at the end of the follow-up (12%); and those quickly progressing to low level of pain or resolution (12%). Trajectories of average Roland-Morris Disability scores and SF-36 Role of Physical scores for above clusters mapped consistently with the corresponding patterns in pain. However, individuals with fluctuating, recurrent pain patterns showed the shortest cumulative duration on 100% benefit and the earliest return-to-work among other clusters. CONCLUSIONS: Four clinically sensible patterns were identified in this cohort of injured workers, suggesting inter-individual differences in back pain recovery. The results confirm that recurrent or chronic back pain is a typical condition in respondents with new back injuries. Pain intensity and disability scores are good measures of recovery of back pain at the individual level. After initial return-to-work, or cessation of benefits, administrative measures of percentage of respondents back at work, or no longer on benefits, may not accurately reflect an individual's condition of back pain.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the longitudinal patterns of recovery among workers with compensated occupational back injuries. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study, with one-year follow-up via structured telephone interviews, among respondents off work because of "new" back injuries. Self-reported pain intensity was recorded at baseline and at four follow-up time points over the course of one year. Workers who answered the questionnaire on at least three occasions (n = 678) were classified into clusters according to their patterns of pain intensity over time using a two-step cluster analysis. RESULTS: Four pain recovery patterns were identified: workers with high levels of pain intensity showing no improvement over time (43%); those experiencing recovery in the first four months with no further improvement or possibly even some deterioration, in the second half year (33%); those experiencing a slow consistent recovery but still with considerable back pain at the end of the follow-up (12%); and those quickly progressing to low level of pain or resolution (12%). Trajectories of average Roland-Morris Disability scores and SF-36 Role of Physical scores for above clusters mapped consistently with the corresponding patterns in pain. However, individuals with fluctuating, recurrent pain patterns showed the shortest cumulative duration on 100% benefit and the earliest return-to-work among other clusters. CONCLUSIONS: Four clinically sensible patterns were identified in this cohort of injured workers, suggesting inter-individual differences in back pain recovery. The results confirm that recurrent or chronic back pain is a typical condition in respondents with new back injuries. Pain intensity and disability scores are good measures of recovery of back pain at the individual level. After initial return-to-work, or cessation of benefits, administrative measures of percentage of respondents back at work, or no longer on benefits, may not accurately reflect an individual's condition of back pain.
Authors: Henrica C W de Vet; Martijn W Heymans; Kate M Dunn; Daniel P Pope; Allard J van der Beek; Gary J Macfarlane; Lex M Bouter; Peter R Croft Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Eva Vingård; Monica Mortimer; Christina Wiktorin; Gunilla Pernold R P T; Kerstin Fredriksson; Gunnar Németh; Lars Alfredsson Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Steven J Kamper; Tasha R Stanton; Christopher M Williams; Christopher G Maher; Julia M Hush Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Iben Axén; Lennart Bodin; Gunnar Bergström; Laszlo Halasz; Fredrik Lange; Peter W Lövgren; Annika Rosenbaum; Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde; Irene Jensen Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Benjamin J Keeney; Deborah Fulton-Kehoe; Thomas M Wickizer; Judith A Turner; Kwun Chuen Gary Chan; Gary M Franklin Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.162