| Literature DB >> 31596408 |
Zulamar Aguiar Cargnin1, Dulcinéia Ghizoni Schneider2, Mara Ambrosina de Oliveira Vargas2, Rosani Ramos Machado2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to relate nonspecific low back pain within the nursing work context with their workloads, attrition processes and the risks of illness.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31596408 PMCID: PMC6781409 DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.2915.3172
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem ISSN: 0104-1169
Factors associated with nonspecific low back pain in the last twelve months in nursing workers of a public hospital in Florianópolis, SC, Brazil, 2017
| Variables | Lumbar pain | Gross OR*(CI) † | Ajusted OR ‡ (CI) † | p value § | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| No f (%) | Yes f (%) | ||||
| Overload sensation | 0,001 | ||||
| No | 109 (54.5) | 91 (45.5) | 1 | 1 | |
| Yes | 25 (32.1) | 53 (67.9) | 2.53 (1.46-4.40) | 3.13 (1.62-6.05) || | |
| Feeling of bad mood | <0.001 | ||||
| No | 129 (52.0) | 119 (48.0) | 1 | 1 | |
| Yes | 5 (16.7) | 25 (83.3) | 5.42(2.01-14.61) | 6.38 (2.00-20.33) || | |
| Feeling fatigued | 0.002 | ||||
| No | 118 (52.7) | 106 (47.3) | 1 | 1 | |
| Yes | 16 (29.6) | 38 (70.4) | 2.64 (1.39-5.01) | 3.45 (1.64-7.25) || | |
| Furniture | 0.006 | ||||
| Unsatisfactory | 94 (44.1) | 119 (55.9) | 2.24 (1.24-4.04) | 2.20 (1.13-4.27) || | |
| Satisfactory | 39 (63.9) | 22 (36.1) | 1 | 1 | |
| Lack of recognition | 0.036 | ||||
| No | 57 (57.0) | 43 (43.0) | 1 | 1 | |
| Yes | 74 (43.8) | 95 (56.2) | 1.70 (1.03-2.80) | 1.78 (0.99-3.20) | |
| Bad environment | 0.023 | ||||
| No | 103 (52.8) | 92 (47.2) | 1 | 1 | |
| Yes | 28 (37.3) | 47 (62.7) | 1.87 (1.08-3.24) | 1.46 (0.78-2.73) | |
| Overload | <0.001 | ||||
| No | 55 (67.9) | 26 (32.1) | 1 | 1 | |
| Yes | 77 (40.5) | 113 (59.5) | 3.10 (1.79-5.37) | 2.69 (1.41-5.13) || | |
*Gross OR = Odds Ratio analysis by univariate logistic regression; † CI = 95% Confidence Interval; ‡ Adjusted OR = Odds Ratio analysis with confounding variables, age, sex, marital status, shift, post, years of work, Body Mass Index, time on duty, other link with entry into the model by the enter method multivariate logistic regression; the significance of the model by the Omnibus tests (p0.05) and the quality by the Hosmer and Lemeshow test (p>0.05); the residue analysis values were within the range of ±2.5; § P value = level of significance p<0.05; ǁ Results of the adjusted analysis = there are significant differences between the studied variables
Descriptive statistics referring to the three dimensions of EACT* and risk classification for illness in nursing workers of a public hospital in Florianópolis, SC, Brazil, 2017
| Dimensions of EACT* | Average | Standard deviation | Situation † |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organization of work | 3.49 | ±1.19 | Critical |
| Work conditions | 3.56 | ±1.22 | Critical |
| Socio-professional relations | 2.55 | ±1.22 | Critical |
*EACT = Work Context Assessment Scale; † Situation = Risk classification for illness
Association between the dimensions of EACT* and nonspecific low back pain in the last 12 months in nursing workers of a public hospital in Florianópolis, SC, Brazil, 2017
| Variable | Lumbar pain | Gross OR † (CI) ‡ | Ajusted OR § (CI) ‡ | p-value ǁ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| No f (%) | Yes f (%) | ||||
| Work Organization | 0.004 | ||||
| Satisfactory | 8 (80.0) | 2 (20.0) | 1 | 1 | |
| Critical | 73 (55.7) | 58 (44.3) | 3.17 (0.65-15.54) | 3.74 (0.64-21.71) | |
| Severe | 33 (37.5) | 55 (62.5) | 6.66 (1.33-33.30) | 9.06 (1.48-55.22) ¶ | |
| Work conditions | 0.007 | ||||
| Satisfactory | 13 (72.2) | 5 (27.8) | 1 | 1 | |
| Critical | 60 (54.5) | 50 (45.5) | 2.16 (0.72-6.49) | 1.63 (0.48-5.52) | |
| Severe | 47 (39.2) | 73 (60.8) | 4.03 (1.33-12.06) | 3.46 (1.01-11.85) ¶ | |
| Socio-professional relations | 0.071 | ||||
| Satisfactory | 54 (58.1) | 39 (41.9) | 1 | 1 | |
| Critical | 50 (42.4) | 68 (57.6) | 1.88 (1.08-3.26) | 2.07 (1.05–4.07) ¶ | |
| Severe | 8 (44.4) | 10 (55.6) | 1.73 (0.62-4.78) | 1.90 (0.62-5.82) | |
*EACT = Work Context Assessment Scale; † Gross OR = Odds Ratio analysis by univariate logistic regression; ‡CI = 95% confidence interval; § Adjusted OR = Odds Ratio analysis with confounding variables, age, sex, marital status, shift, post, years of work, Body Mass Index, time on duty, other link with entry into the model by the enter method multivariate logistic regression; significance of the model by Omnibus tests (p<0.05) and quality by the Hosmer and Lemeshow test (p>0.05); the residue analysis values were within the range of ±2.5; ǁ P value = Significance level p<0.05; ¶ Results of the adjusted analysis = There are significant differences between the studied variables