OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a media campaign on popular beliefs about LBP, and eventual changes in sick leave, imaging examinations, and surgery. METHODS: Quasi-experimental telephone survey of 1500 randomly chosen people before, during, and after a media campaign in two Norwegian counties, with residents of an adjacent county as the control group. Data on sickness absence, surgery rates for disc herniation and imaging examinations on LBP in the area were collected at the same intervals. RESULTS: The campaign led to a small but statistically significant shift in beliefs about LBP in the general public. In particular, beliefs about the use of X-rays, and the importance of remaining active and at work, seemed to have changed in response to the campaign messages. However, this change in attitude and understanding of the condition did not lead to any corresponding change in sickness behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Although the media campaign seemed to somewhat improve beliefs about LBP in the general public, the magnitude of this was too small to produce any significant change in behaviour. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A media campaign on LBP should not be limited to small areas and low-budget. A much larger investment is needed for a media campaign to have sufficient impact on public's beliefs on LBP to lead to altered sickness behaviour.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a media campaign on popular beliefs about LBP, and eventual changes in sick leave, imaging examinations, and surgery. METHODS: Quasi-experimental telephone survey of 1500 randomly chosen people before, during, and after a media campaign in two Norwegian counties, with residents of an adjacent county as the control group. Data on sickness absence, surgery rates for disc herniation and imaging examinations on LBP in the area were collected at the same intervals. RESULTS: The campaign led to a small but statistically significant shift in beliefs about LBP in the general public. In particular, beliefs about the use of X-rays, and the importance of remaining active and at work, seemed to have changed in response to the campaign messages. However, this change in attitude and understanding of the condition did not lead to any corresponding change in sickness behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Although the media campaign seemed to somewhat improve beliefs about LBP in the general public, the magnitude of this was too small to produce any significant change in behaviour. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A media campaign on LBP should not be limited to small areas and low-budget. A much larger investment is needed for a media campaign to have sufficient impact on public's beliefs on LBP to lead to altered sickness behaviour.
Authors: Steven Z George; Deydre S Teyhen; Samuel S Wu; Alison C Wright; Jessica L Dugan; Guijun Yang; Michael E Robinson; John D Childs Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2009-05-06 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Arnela Suman; Geoffrey P Bostick; Donald Schopflocher; Anthony S Russell; Robert Ferrari; Michele C Battié; Richard Hu; Rachelle Buchbinder; Douglas P Gross Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Edel O'Hagan; Adrian C Traeger; Siobhan M Schabrun; Sean O'Neill; Benedict Martin Wand; Aidan Cashin; Christopher Michael Williams; Ian A Harris; James H McAuley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Arnela Suman; Frederieke G Schaafsma; Jiman Bamarni; Maurits W van Tulder; Johannes R Anema Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Arnela Suman; Geoffrey P Bostick; Frederieke G Schaafsma; Johannes R Anema; Douglas P Gross Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Pernille Frederiksen; Aage Indahl; Lars L Andersen; Kim Burton; Rasmus Hertzum-Larsen; Tom Bendix Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 3.240