Intensive education combined with low tech ergonomic intervention does not prevent low back pain in nurses. A field trial of back belts to reduce the incidence of acute low back injuries in New York City home attendants. A randomized controlled trial to prevent patient lift and transfer injuries of health care workers. An evaluation of a weightlifting belt and back injury prevention training class for airline baggage handlers. The Back Injury Prevention Project pilot study. Assessing the effectiveness of back attack, an injury prevention program among nurses, aides, and orderlies. Lumbar supports and education for the prevention of low back pain in industry: a randomized controlled trial. Evaluation of an educational low back pain prevention program for hospital employees. [Coordinative treatment and quality of life - a randomised trial of nurses with back pain]. Little effect of transfer technique instruction and physical fitness training in reducing low back pain among nurses: a cluster randomised intervention study. Can a new behaviorally oriented training process to improve lifting technique prevent occupationally related back injuries due to lifting? Prevention of low back pain in female eldercare workers: randomized controlled work site trial. Effects of a multifaceted minimal-lift environment for nursing staff: pilot results. A controlled trial of an educational program to prevent low back injuries. Effect of nursing assistance tools on preventing musculoskeletal pain among staff in schools for disabled children. The effect of individual job coaching and use of health threat in a job-specific occupational health education program on prevention of work-related musculoskeletal back injury.
To evaluate the effectiveness of an intensive educational and low-tech ergonomic intervention programme aimed at reducing low back pain (LBP) among home care nurses and nurses' aids.
                In 1999, 345 home care nurses and nurses' aids in four Danish municipalities were studied. Participants in two municipalities constituted the intervention group and participants in the other two served as the control group. In the intervention group, participants were divided into small groups, each of which was assigned one specially trained instructor. During weekly meetings participants were educated in body mechanics, patient transfer, and lifting techniques, and use of low-tech ergonomic aids. In the control group, participants attended a one time only three hour instructional meeting. Information on LBP was collected using the Standardised Nordic Questionnaire supplemented with information on number of episodes of LBP and care seeking due to LBP during the past year.
                A total of 309 nurses and nurses' aids returned the questionnaire at baseline and 255 at follow up in August 2001. At follow up, no significant differences were found between the two groups for any of the LBP variables, and both groups thought that education in patient transfer techniques had been helpful. Within group changes in LBP status was not related to the intervention or to satisfaction with participating in the project.
                Intensive weekly education in body mechanics, patient transfer techniques, and use of low-tech ergonomic equipment was not superior to a one time only three hour instructional meeting for home care nurses and nurses' aids. To determine the effect of black belt use on the incidence of low back injury in home attendants, a cluster-randomized trial involving employees of nine home attendant agencies in New York City was conducted. Nine agencies employing 12,772 home attendants between June 1997 and September 1999 were randomized into three groups-one group received back belts with use instruction, one group received lifting advice only, and one group served as a control. Low back injury rates per 100 full-time equivalents and rate ratios adjusted for potential confounders were estimated with random-effects Poisson regression. The back-belt group had a lower rate of low back injury than did those in both the advice-only and control groups, though the differences were marginally significant. Age, body mass index, history of back injury, years worked as a home attendant, and level of exercise were associated with risk of low back injury. The findings suggest that use of back belts is associated with some reduction in risk of low back injury. Randomized controlled trial (RCT).
                To compare the effectiveness of training and equipment to reduce musculoskeletal injuries, increase comfort, and reduce physical demands on staff performing patient lifts and transfers at a large acute care hospital.
                Back injury to nursing staff during patient handling tasks is a major issue in health care. The value of mechanical assistive devices in reducing injuries to these workers is unclear.
                This three-armed RCT consisted of a "control arm," a "safe lifting" arm, and a "no strenuous lifting" arm. A medical, surgical, and rehabilitation ward were each randomly assigned to each arm. Both intervention arms received intensive training in back care, patient assessment, and handling techniques. Hence, the "safe lifting" arm used improved patient handling techniques using manual equipment, whereas the "no strenuous lifting" arm aimed to eliminate manual patient handling through use of additional mechanical and other assistive equipment.
                Frequency of manual patient handling tasks was significantly decreased on the "no strenuous lifting" arm. Self-perceived work fatigue, back and shoulder pain, safety, and frequency and intensity of physical discomfort associated with patient handling tasks were improved on both intervention arms, but staff on the mechanical equipment arm showed greater improvements. Musculoskeletal injury rates were not significantly altered.
                The "no strenuous lifting" program, which combined training with assured availability of mechanical and other assistive patient handling equipment, most effectively improved comfort with patient handling, decreased staff fatigue, and decreased physical demands. The fact that injury rates were not statistically significantly reduced may reflect the less sensitive nature of this indicator compared with the subjective indicators. This study evaluated the efficacy of a commercially available weightlifting belt in relation to reduction of lumbar injury incident rate and severity of injuries over an 8-month period. The study used 642 baggage handlers working for a major airline company as participants. Four treatment groups were randomly selected: a group receiving the belt only, a group receiving a 1 h training class only, a group receiving both a belt and a 1 h training class, and a control group receiving nothing. Two treatment groups were added which contained participants who discontinued use of the belt prior to the end of an 8-month study period. Results indicated that there were no significant differences for total lumbar injury incident rate, restricted workday case injury incident rate, lost workdays and restricted workdays rate, and worker's compensation rates. There was, however, a marginal significant difference for lost workday case injury incident rate. Groups with participants who wore the belt for a while then discontinued its use had a higher lost day case injury incident rate than did either the group receiving training only or the control group. Compliance was an overriding factor as the belt questionnaire response indicated that 58% of participants in the belt groups discontinued use of the belt before the end of 8 months. Comments made on the survey forms indicated that the belt was too hot. Similarly, comments suggested that the belt rubbed, pinched, and bruised ribs. Based on these results, the weightlifting belt used for this study cannot be recommended for use in aid of lifting during daily work activities of baggage handlers. Results indicate that use of the belts may, in fact, increase the risk of injury when not wearing a belt following a period of wearing a belt. As industries are experimenting with the use of belts, it is recommended that great care be taken in any further evaluation and close attention directed towards injuries which occur when not wearing the belt following a period of wearing the belt (ie, off-the-job injuries). The Back Injury Prevention Project was a pilot study of "Back Attack," an educational program designed to prevent back injuries among nurses, nurses' aides, and orderlies. The pilot tested program feasibility, developed and tested instruments, and generated preliminary data measuring program effectiveness. Fifty-five nurses, aides, and orderlies on two medical/surgical units at two Kaiser Permanente medical centers in Portland, Oregon participated in the study. Intervention group scores on the composite back pain and composite fatigue scales decreased relative to the control group, but this did not reach statistical significance. A 19% improvement in scores for quality of patient transfer was observed for the intervention group (P < .0003), while the control group did not show any significant improvement during the same time period. Results of the pilot suggest that the Back Attack program changes behavior at least in the short term. Further study will be necessary to determine if the behavior change persists and back pain and injury rates are subsequently reduced. Low back pain is a frequent and costly health problem. Prevention of low back pain is important both for the individual patient and from an economic perspective.
                To assess the efficacy of lumbar supports and education in the prevention of low back pain in industry.
                A randomized controlled trial with a factorial design.
                The cargo department of an airline company in the Netherlands.
                A total of 312 workers were randomized, of whom 282 were available for the 6-month follow-up.
                Subjects were randomly assigned to 4 groups: (1) education (lifting instructions) and lumbar support, (2) education, (3) lumbar support, and (4) no intervention. Education consisted of 3 group sessions on lifting techniques with a total duration of 5 hours. Lumbar supports were recommended to be used during working hours for 6 months.
                Low back pain incidence and sick leave because of back pain during the 6-month intervention period.
                Compliance with wearing the lumbar support at least half the time was 43%. In the 282 subjects for whom data were available, no statistically significant differences in back pain incidence (48 [36%] of 134 with lumbar support vs 51 [34%] of 148 without, P=.81) or in sick leave because of low back pain (mean, 0.4 days per month with lumbar support vs 0.4 days without, P=.52) were found among the intervention groups. In a subgroup of subjects with low back pain at baseline, lumbar supports reduced the number of days with low back pain per month (median, 1.2 vs 6.5 days per month; P=.03).
                Overall, lumbar supports or education did not lead to a reduction in low back pain incidence or sick leave. The results of the subgroup analysis need to be confirmed by future research. Based on our results, the use of education or lumbar supports cannot be recommended in the prevention of low back pain in industry. To evaluate the impact of an educational low back pain prevention program in a cohort of hospital employees.
                A cohort of 136 nonclerical hospital employees attended classes on safe postures and patient handling, then received advice by educators who observed them while they performed their typical workday tasks. Each of the subjects in this intervention group was matched on age, sex, and job category with a control. Musculoskeletal complaints and changes in habits during work and recreational activities were evaluated before the intervention (or the corresponding date in the control group) and after two years.
                In the intervention group, 36% of subjects with low back pain at baseline were free of this symptom at follow-up, whereas only 26% were in the opposite situation. The proportion of subjects with low back pain episodes lasting longer than 30 days increased significantly from baseline to follow-up in the control group (from 30% to 49%) but not in the intervention group. The number of sick leaves longer than 30 days decreased significantly in the intervention group. Only 33% of the intervention group subjects felt the intervention had been helpful; this proportion varied across job categories.
                Our data suggest that differences in job categories should be taken into account when designing educational programs for preventing low back pain. They also indicate that back school programs may be more effective in subjects with a history of low back pain, whereas instruction on safe postures and patient handling may be the best approach in subjects who have not previously experienced low back pain. Observing and providing advice to employees while they are performing their usual duties may be an essential component of low back pain prevention. The influence of strength training on back conditions has been demonstrated quite well, whereas coordinative training being a major component of physical therapy regarding preventive and rehabilitative treatment of back pain is used only occasionally and has been evaluated even more rarely. One has to consider this fact regarding the still growing number of musculo-skeletal diseases.
                The influence of several preventive therapies (coordination training in spacecurl, kinaesthetics/back protective patient transfer) has been investigated with regard to coordination, back pain and quality of life in a randomised controlled study.
                We used an assessment-set consisting of a specially devised questionnaire regarding job demands, sports activity and back pain and the WHOQOL-BREF for control of quality of life. These methods were combined with body surface electromyography and posturography. Those methods enabled us to determine parameters such as coordination, back pain and quality of life at 3 different stages (untrained individuals) and 4 points (trained individuals) respectively.
                Trained individuals showed a significant reduction of back pain frequency (p = 0.016) before and after training. In comparison there was no difference in untrained individuals. Furthermore trained individuals showed an increase in quality of life of 5.4 % (p = 0.028), whereas again there was no difference in untrained individuals. Somatic diagnostics (body surface electromyography, posturography) showed significant changes only in the trained group.
                The used coordination training program is enhancing coordination and reducing back pain whilst having a positive effect upon the quality of life of an individual. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a transfer technique education programme (TT) alone or in combination with physical fitness training (TTPT) compared with a control group, who followed their usual routine. Eleven clinical hospital wards were cluster randomised to either intervention (six wards) or to control (five wards). The intervention cluster was individually randomised to TT (55 nurses) and TTPT (50 nurses), control (76 nurses). The transfer technique programme was a 4-d course of train-the-trainers to teach transfer technique to their colleagues. The physical training consisted of supervised physical fitness training 1 h twice per week for 8 weeks. Implementing transfer technique alone or in combination with physical fitness training among a hospital nursing staff did not, when compared to a control group, show any statistical differences according to self-reported low back pain (LBP), pain level, disability and sick leave at a 12-month follow-up. However, the individual randomised intervention subgroup (transfer technique/physical training) significantly improved the LBP-disability (p = 0.001). Although weakened by a high withdrawal rate, teaching transfer technique to nurses in a hospital setting needs to be thoroughly considered. Other priorities such as physical training may be taken into consideration. The current study supports the findings of other studies that introducing transfer technique alone has no effect in targeting LBP. However, physical training seems to have an influence in minimising the LBP consequences and may be important in the discussion of how to prevent LBP or the recurrence of LBP among nursing personnel. A prospective randomized control trial.
                To determine the degree to which a new behavior-based lift training program (LiftTrainer; Ascension Technology, Burlington, VT) could reduce the incidence of low back disorder in distribution center jobs that require repetitive lifting.
                Most studies show programs aimed at training lifting techniques to be ineffective in preventing low back disorders, which may be due to their conceptual rather than behavioral learning approach.
                A total of 2144 employees in 19 distribution centers were randomized into either the LiftTrainer program or a video control group. In the LiftTrainer program, participants were individually trained in up to 5, 30-minute sessions while instrumented with motion capture sensors to quantify the L5/S1 moments. Twelve months following the initial training, injury data were obtained from company records.
                Survival analyses (Kaplan-Meier) indicated that there was no difference in injury rates between the 2 training groups. Likewise, there was no difference in the turnover rates. However, those with a low (<30 Nm) average twisting moment at the end of the first session experienced a significantly (P < 0.005) lower rate of low back disorder than controls.
                While overall the LiftTrainer program was not effective, those with twisting moments below 30 Nm reported fewer injuries, suggesting a shift in focus for "safe" lifting programs. Randomized controlled trial.
                To evaluate the effectiveness of an ergonomic and psychosocial intervention in reducing low back pain (LBP) among health care workers.
                LBP and injuries are reported frequently among health care workers worldwide. Improvement of person-transfer techniques is the preferred tool in the prevention of both. Although popular, to our knowledge, any effect has not been documented in controlled trials.
                Study participants were eldercare workers from 19 eldercare groups randomly assigned to the transfer technique, stress management, or reference arm. A total of 163 individuals (79% of the source population) participated in both baseline and follow-up after 2 years. Outcome was intra-individual change in rating of LBP during the past 3 and 12 months.
                We found no difference in LBP in any of the intervention arms over the study period.
                The study showed no effect of a transfer technique or stress management program targeting LBP. Thus, there is a need for discussing other priorities in the prevention of LBP among health care workers. Nursing staff are at risk for musculoskeletal injuries because of the physical nature of patient handling. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of a multifaceted minimal-lift environment on reported equipment use, musculoskeletal injury rates, and workers' compensation costs for patient-handling injuries. The pilot study consists of a mixed measures design, with both descriptive and quasi-experimental design elements. The intervention consists of engineering (minimal-lift equipment), administrative (nursing policy), and behavioral (peer coach program) controls. The comparison nursing unit has received engineering controls only. The convenience sample includes nursing staff employed on two medical-surgical nursing units, who provide direct patient care at least 50% of the time. Nursing staff employed in a multifaceted lift environment report greater lift equipment use and experience less injury, with reduced worker's compensation costs. Low back injuries are common and costly, accounting for 15 to 25 percent of injuries covered by workers' compensation and 30 to 40 percent of the payments made under that program. The high costs of injury, the lack of effective treatment. and the evidence that there are behavioral risk factors have led to widespread use of employee education programs that teach safe lifting and handling. The effectiveness of those programs, however, has received little rigorous evaluation.
                We evaluated an educational program designed to prevent low back injury in a randomized, controlled trial involving about 4000 postal workers. The program, similar to that in wide use in so-called back schools, was taught by experienced physical therapists. Work units of workers and supervisors were trained in a two-session back school (three hours of training), followed by three to four reinforcement sessions over the succeeding few years. Injured subjects (from both the intervention and the control groups) were randomized a second time to receive either training or no training after their return to work.
                Physical therapists trained 2534 postal workers and 134 supervisors. Over 5.5 years of follow-up, 360 workers reported low back injuries, for a rate of 21.2 injuries per 1000 worker-years of risk. The median time off from work per injury was 14 days (range, 0 to 1717); the median cost was $204 (range, zero to $190,380). After their return to work, 75 workers were injured again. Our comparison of the intervention and control groups found that the education program did not reduce the rate of low back injury, the median cost per injury, the time off from work per injury, the rate of related musculoskeletal injuries, or the rate of repeated injury after return to work; only the subjects' knowledge of safe behavior was increased by the training.
                A large-scale, randomized, controlled trial of an educational program to prevent work-associated low back injury found no long-term benefits associated with training. Objective is to clarify whether nursing assistance tools (a mat with attached handles, a pair of trousers with knee pads and a waist holding belt) prevent musculoskeletal pain, such as low back pain and upper arm pain, and depression, and improve the burden on the lower back and upper arm among staff in schools for disabled children. This study design was a non-randomized intervention trial. The subjects were 41 staff in two schools for disabled children in Japan. Nursing assistance tools were used with the intervention group to help with their nursing activities. We investigated the one-month prevalence of low back pain and the degree of burden on the lower back using a questionnaire at the baseline and at the end point 4 to 6 months later. The prevalence of low back pain did not change significantly in either group. In the intervention group, the prevalence of upper arm pain decreased from 47.6% at the baseline to 23.8% at the end point (p=0.063). The percentage of participants with a high level of burden on the lower back from excretory nursing activity decreased from 57.1% at the baseline to 33.3% at the end point (p=0.063) in the intervention group. These results suggest that nursing assistance tools may prevent upper arm pain and improve the burden on the lower back among staff in schools for disabled children; however, these tools did not significantly prevent low back pain and depression. To examine the effect of individual job coaching and use of health threat in a job-specific occupational health education program in preventing work-related musculoskeletal back injuries during manual materials handling in construction laborers.
                Two hundred five laborers were recruited by 3-stage cluster sampling process and randomly assigned to receive different education programs on manual materials handling. Control group was given a conventional program, whereas experimental group received a job-specific program.
                A statistically significant group difference was found in the knowledge and practical skills on manual materials handling after training (P < 0.0001). Furthermore, the results from 1-year cumulative incidence revealed a significantly lesser number of first-time reports of work-related musculoskeletal back injuries in the experimental group.
                These results indicate that job-specific education is an effective preventive strategy for work-related musculoskeletal back injury.
There is moderate quality evidence that MMH advice and training with or without assistive devices does not prevent back pain or back pain-related disability when compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. There is no evidence available from RCTs for the effectiveness of MMH advice and training or MMH assistive devices for treating back pain. More high quality studies could further reduce the remaining uncertainty.