D A M Hogan1, L W O'Sullivan2, S Nolan3, B A Greiner4. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College Cork, Cork T12 XF62, Ireland. 2. Department of Design and Manufacturing Technology, University of Limerick, Limerick V94 T9PX, Ireland. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College Cork, Cork T12 XF62, Ireland, Kerry Health and Safety, Killarney, Co Kerry V93 H9YO, Ireland. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College Cork, Cork T12 XF62, Ireland, B.Greiner@ucc.ie.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Within the international literature, no studies have been identified that compare prevalence rates of low back pain (LBP) in chartered physiotherapists, physical and athletic therapists and those in the national working population, making it unclear whether such therapists are an occupational group at high risk of developing LBP. AIMS: To establish the prevalence of LBP among therapists (both employed and self-employed) in Ireland, to compare the employment status-, gender- and age-specific LBP prevalence rates between therapists and the national working population and to estimate the adjusted odds of developing LBP among therapists relative to the national working population. METHODS: An analysis of data from the Health In Hand Intensive Tasks and Safety (HITS) study and the third national Survey on Lifestyle, Attitudes and Nutrition (SLÁN). The HITS study was a cross-sectional study investigating work-related musculoskeletal disorders in practising therapists. The SLÁN 2007 was a face-to-face interview study of adults. RESULTS: LBP prevalence in therapists was 49% with no significant difference by employment status. Therapists had a much higher prevalence compared with the national working population across all demographic strata, with therapists nearly five times more likely to suffer from LBP than the national working population after careful adjustment for differences in sociodemographic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Therapists in Ireland are an occupational group at high risk of developing LBP, warranting further research into their physical and psychosocial work-related risk factors.
BACKGROUND: Within the international literature, no studies have been identified that compare prevalence rates of low back pain (LBP) in chartered physiotherapists, physical and athletic therapists and those in the national working population, making it unclear whether such therapists are an occupational group at high risk of developing LBP. AIMS: To establish the prevalence of LBP among therapists (both employed and self-employed) in Ireland, to compare the employment status-, gender- and age-specific LBP prevalence rates between therapists and the national working population and to estimate the adjusted odds of developing LBP among therapists relative to the national working population. METHODS: An analysis of data from the Health In Hand Intensive Tasks and Safety (HITS) study and the third national Survey on Lifestyle, Attitudes and Nutrition (SLÁN). The HITS study was a cross-sectional study investigating work-related musculoskeletal disorders in practising therapists. The SLÁN 2007 was a face-to-face interview study of adults. RESULTS: LBP prevalence in therapists was 49% with no significant difference by employment status. Therapists had a much higher prevalence compared with the national working population across all demographic strata, with therapists nearly five times more likely to suffer from LBP than the national working population after careful adjustment for differences in sociodemographic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Therapists in Ireland are an occupational group at high risk of developing LBP, warranting further research into their physical and psychosocial work-related risk factors.
Authors: I Balogh; P Orbaek; J Winkel; C Nordander; K Ohlsson; J Ektor-Andersen Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Erika Zemková; Eva Ďurinová; Andrej Džubera; Henrieta Horníková; Juraj Chochol; Jana Koišová; Michaela Šimonová; Ludmila Zapletalová Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-23 Impact factor: 3.390