Effect of a smartphone self-management digital support system for low-back pain (selfBACK) among workers with high physical work demands - secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.
IF 4.7 2区 医学Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Charlotte Diana Nørregaard Rasmussen, Louise Fleng Sandal, Andreas Holtermann, Mette Jensen Stochkendahl, Paul Jarle Mork, Karen Søgaard
{"title":"Effect of a smartphone self-management digital support system for low-back pain (selfBACK) among workers with high physical work demands - secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Charlotte Diana Nørregaard Rasmussen, Louise Fleng Sandal, Andreas Holtermann, Mette Jensen Stochkendahl, Paul Jarle Mork, Karen Søgaard","doi":"10.5271/sjweh.4186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to investigate whether physical work demands modify the effect of the selfBACK app, which is designed to support self-management of low-back pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a secondary analysis of the selfBACK trial with 346 employed participants, we stratified into low (N=165) and high physical work demands (N=181). Outcomes included the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (0-24), a numeric rating scale for low-back pain intensity (0-10), the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (0-60), and work ability (0-10). Intervention effects were assessed at three- and nine-month follow-ups using a linear mixed model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At three months, high physical demand workers with selfBACK showed a significant reduction in pain intensity [-0.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.3- -0.2] compared to usual care. By nine months, the high physical demands workers with selfBACK reported reduced pain-related disability (-1.4, 95% CI -2.7- -0.1), improved pain self-efficacy (3.5, 95% CI 0.9-6.0), and lower pain intensity (-1.0, 95% CI -1.6- -0.4) compared to usual care. Low physical demands workers with selfBACK also improved pain self-efficacy [2.8 (95% CI 0.3-5.3)] compared to usual care. The impact of selfBACK was more noticeable among workers with high physical demands compared to their low physical demand counterparts, but no statistically significant differences were found in any outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The selfBACK intervention had consistent effects across workers with high and low physical work demands, indicating that these demands did not modify its impact. Both groups experienced similar positive effects, highlighting the intervention's effectiveness across varying levels of physical work demands.</p>","PeriodicalId":21528,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","volume":" ","pages":"613-621"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4186","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether physical work demands modify the effect of the selfBACK app, which is designed to support self-management of low-back pain.
Methods: In a secondary analysis of the selfBACK trial with 346 employed participants, we stratified into low (N=165) and high physical work demands (N=181). Outcomes included the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (0-24), a numeric rating scale for low-back pain intensity (0-10), the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (0-60), and work ability (0-10). Intervention effects were assessed at three- and nine-month follow-ups using a linear mixed model.
Results: At three months, high physical demand workers with selfBACK showed a significant reduction in pain intensity [-0.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.3- -0.2] compared to usual care. By nine months, the high physical demands workers with selfBACK reported reduced pain-related disability (-1.4, 95% CI -2.7- -0.1), improved pain self-efficacy (3.5, 95% CI 0.9-6.0), and lower pain intensity (-1.0, 95% CI -1.6- -0.4) compared to usual care. Low physical demands workers with selfBACK also improved pain self-efficacy [2.8 (95% CI 0.3-5.3)] compared to usual care. The impact of selfBACK was more noticeable among workers with high physical demands compared to their low physical demand counterparts, but no statistically significant differences were found in any outcome.
Conclusions: The selfBACK intervention had consistent effects across workers with high and low physical work demands, indicating that these demands did not modify its impact. Both groups experienced similar positive effects, highlighting the intervention's effectiveness across varying levels of physical work demands.
目的:本研究旨在探讨体力劳动需求是否会改变selfBACK应用程序的效果:本研究旨在调查体力劳动需求是否会改变selfBACK应用程序的效果,该应用程序旨在支持腰背痛的自我管理:在对有 346 名在职参与者参加的 selfBACK 试验进行的二次分析中,我们将参与者分为体力工作要求低(165 人)和体力工作要求高(181 人)两类。结果包括罗兰-莫里斯残疾问卷(0-24)、腰背痛强度数字评分量表(0-10)、疼痛自我效能问卷(0-60)和工作能力(0-10)。在三个月和九个月的随访中,采用线性混合模型对干预效果进行了评估:结果:与常规护理相比,三个月后,采用自我康复治疗的高体力需求工人的疼痛强度显著降低[-0.8,95% 置信区间(CI)-1.3--0.2]。到九个月时,与常规护理相比,有自我心理辅导的高体力需求工作者的疼痛相关残疾程度降低了(-1.4,95% CI -2.7--0.1),疼痛自我效能感提高了(3.5,95% CI 0.9-6.0),疼痛强度降低了(-1.0,95% CI -1.6- -0.4)。与常规护理相比,低体力要求工人使用自我心理支持也提高了疼痛自我效能感[2.8 (95% CI 0.3-5.3)]。与体力需求低的工人相比,自我BACK对体力需求高的工人的影响更为明显,但在任何结果上都没有发现有统计学意义的差异:selfBACK干预对体力要求高和体力要求低的工人产生了一致的效果,表明体力要求并没有改变其影响。两组人都体验到了类似的积极效果,凸显了该干预措施在不同体力工作需求水平下的有效性。
期刊介绍:
The aim of the Journal is to promote research in the fields of occupational and environmental health and safety and to increase knowledge through the publication of original research articles, systematic reviews, and other information of high interest. Areas of interest include occupational and environmental epidemiology, occupational and environmental medicine, psychosocial factors at work, physical work load, physical activity work-related mental and musculoskeletal problems, aging, work ability and return to work, working hours and health, occupational hygiene and toxicology, work safety and injury epidemiology as well as occupational health services. In addition to observational studies, quasi-experimental and intervention studies are welcome as well as methodological papers, occupational cohort profiles, and studies associated with economic evaluation. The Journal also publishes short communications, case reports, commentaries, discussion papers, clinical questions, consensus reports, meeting reports, other reports, book reviews, news, and announcements (jobs, courses, events etc).