A systematic review of workplace interventions to prevent low back pain. Effectiveness of workplace interventions in rehabilitating musculoskeletal disorders and preventing its consequences among workers with physical and sedentary employment: systematic review protocol Industrial back belts and low back pain: Mechanisms and outcomes Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group. The natural course of low back pain: a systematic critical literature review Medial branch neurotomy in management of chronic spinal pain: systematic review of the evidence. Are Work Disability Prevention Interventions Effective for the Management of Neck Pain or Upper Extremity Disorders? A Systematic Review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration Multidisciplinary Group Rehabilitation Versus Individual Physiotherapy for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Trial NICE guidance on long-term sickness and incapacity. Evidence-based medicine and the challenge of low back pain: where are we now? Interventional Therapies, Surgery, and Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation for Low Back Pain: An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline From the American Pain Society A pragmatic multi-centred randomised controlled trial of yoga for chronic low back pain: Trial protocol A multifaceted workplace intervention for low back pain in nurses' aides: a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial Reduction of Pain-Related Disability in Working Populations: A Randomized Intervention Study of the Effects of an Educational Booklet Addressing Psychosocial Risk Factors and Screening Workplaces for Physical Health Hazards Effectiveness of physical therapist administered spinal manipulation for the treatment of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature. Psychosocial effects of workplace exercise - A systematic review. Randomised controlled trial of integrated care to reduce disability from chronic low back pain in working and private life A Population‐Based, Randomized Clinical Trial on Back Pain Management
A systematic review of r and omised controlled trials was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of  workplace interventions  to prevent low back pain .  Potential trials were located by a computerised search supplemented with citation tracking . The method ological quality of the trials was assessed on 11 criteria and the level of evidence for each intervention was determined , based upon the amount , consistency and quality of evidence from the trials . The review located 13 trials that were generally of moderate quality . The trials suggest that work place exercise is effective , braces and education are ineffective , and workplace modification plus education is of unknown value in preventing low back pain Background Musculoskeletal disorders ( MSDs ) are the leading cause of work disability and sickness absence worldwide . The prevalence of MSDs increases with age , consequently challenging sustainable employability among the growing ageing workforce . Knowledge of feasible and efficient workplace-based interventions to rehabilitate MSD or prevent its consequences is therefore warranted . This systematic review will evaluate the effectiveness of workplace-based interventions on MSDs and its consequences among adult workers with physical and sedentary work tasks , respectively . Methods We will search the following bibliographic data bases : PubMed ( including the data base ‘ MEDLINE ’ ) and Web of Science Core Collection ( including the data bases ‘ Science Citation Index Exp and ed ’ , ‘ Social Sciences Citation Index ’ and ‘ Arts & Humanities Citation Index ’ ) . Manual search es will also be performed . We will include r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) and non- RCTs reported in English in which ( 1 ) participants are adult workers with MSD , ( 2 ) interventions are aim ing at rehabilitating pain symptoms of MSD or preventing the consequences of MSD and ( 3 ) interventions are initiated and /or carried out at the workplace . The review will adhere to the ‘ Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review s and Meta-Analyses ’ ( PRISMA ) guidelines for reporting systematic review s and the Institute for Work and Health ( IWH ) guidelines for workplace-based interventions . For the primary evaluation of the review , the quality assessment and evidence synthesis will conform to the IWH guidelines . Secondary evaluation will include a meta- analysis ( unless the included studies do not allow this due to heterogeneity ) and employ the risk of bias domains recommended by Cochrane along with the Grading of Recommendations , Assessment , Development and Evaluations ( GRADE ) approach on the studies with pain intensity as an outcome . Discussion This systematic review will provide knowledge on effective workplace-based interventions among physical and sedentary workers with MSD . RCTs are considered the most powerful experimental design in clinical trials , but solely including these may be too restrictive to underst and effective workplace-based interventions where r and omised and carefully controlled trials ( RCTs ) are not always possible . In order to maximize practical relevance , the selection process will , therefore , include both RCTs and non- RCTs and the quality assessment and evidence synthesis will conform to IWH guidelines focusing on developing practical guidelines for stakeholders . The result of this work will form the basis for industry-specific evidence -based recommendations on effective workplace-based interventions for rehabilitation of MSDs and its consequences that will later be operationalised into concrete and user-friendly practical tools for workplaces . Systematic review registration International Prospect i ve Register of Systematic Review s ( PROSPERO ) number CRD42018116752 The recent increased utilization of industrial back belts as personal protective equipment in the workplace has generated considerable controversy among occupational health and safety professionals in the United States . The purpose of this article is to review the literature regarding proposed mechanisms of action of these devices and studies related to outcome of belt utilization in the prevention of  low back pain and disability  in the workplace . At the present time , neither the suspected mechanisms of action nor the efficacy of these devices in the primary , secondary , and tertiary prevention of work-related low back pain has been adequately demonstrated in clinical trials . As a result , generally accepted guidelines regarding the safe use of belts in the occupational setting have not been established . Based on this review it is recommended that further well-controlled , prospect i ve , r and omized clinical trials are necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of these devices as personal protective equipment . During the interim , the decision to prescribe belts to employees in the workplace should be at the discretion of an adequately trained occupational health care provider . These devices should not be provided as an alternative to appropriate administrative and /or engineering controls STUDY DESIGN A systematic review of r and omized and nonr and omized controlled trials . SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Lumbar supports are used in the treatment of low back pain , but also to prevent the onset ( primary prevention ) or recurrences of a low back pain episode ( secondary prevention ) . OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of lumbar sup-ports for prevention and treatment of nonspecific low back pain .  METHODS The Medline , Cinahl , and Current Contents data bases ; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to September 1999 ; and the Embase data base up to September 1998 were all search ed . References of identified trials and systematic review s were review ed and the Science Citation Index used to identify additional trials . Method ologic quality assessment and data extraction were performed by two review ers independently . A quantitative analysis was performed in which the strength of evidence was classified as strong , moderate , limited or conflicting , and no evidence . RESULTS Five r and omized and two nonr and omized preventive trials and six r and omized therapeutic trials were included in the review . Only 4 of the 13 studies were of high quality . There was moderate evidence that lumbar supports are not effective for primary prevention . No evidence was found on the effectiveness of lumbar supports for secondary prevention . The systematic review of therapeutic trials showed that there is limited evidence that lumbar supports are more effective than no treatment , whereas it is still unclear whether lumbar supports are more effective than other interventions for treatment of low back pain . CONCLUSIONS There continues to be a need for high quality r and omized trials on the effectiveness of lumbar supports . One of the most essential issues to tackle in these future trials seems to be the realization of adequate compliance Background Most patients in the secondary care sector consulting for low back pain ( LBP ) seem to have a more or less constant course of pain during the ensuing year . Fewer patients with LBP in the primary care sector report continual pain over a one-year period . However , not much is known about the long-term course of LBP in the general population . A systematic critical literature review was undertaken in order to study the natural course of LBP over time in the general population . Methods A search of articles was performed in Pubmed , Cinahl and Psychinfo using the search terms ‘ epidemiology ’ ; ‘ low back pain ’ or ‘ back pain ’ ; ‘ prospect i ve study ’ or ‘ longitudinal study ’ ; ‘ follow-up ’ , ‘ natural course ’ , ‘ course ’ or ‘ natural history ’ ; ‘ general population ’ or ‘ working population ’ . Inclusion criteria were that one of the objectives was to study the course of (L)BP in the adult population , that the period of follow-up was at least 3 months , and that there were three points of observation or more . The review was undertaken by two independent review ers using three checklists relating to description of studies , quality and outcomes . The course of LBP was established in relation to those who , at baseline , were reported not to have LBP or to have LBP . Would this course be stable , fluctuating , worsening , or improving over time ? A synthesis of results in relation to common patterns was presented in a table and interpreted in a narrative form . Results Eight articles were included . Articles were different on time span , the number of surveys , and the definition of LBP . In six of the seven relevant studies , for those with no LBP at baseline , relatively substantial stable subgroups of people who continued to be LBP free were identified . In six of the seven relevant studies , definite stable subgroups of continued LBP were noted and improvement ( becoming pain free ) was never reported to be a common finding . Conclusion The status of LBP in individuals of the general population appears to be relatively stable over time , perhaps particularly so for those without LBP at baseline Zygapophysial or facet joints have been implicated as cause of low back , mid back , upper back and neck pain with referred pain . Cervical , thoracic and lumbar facet joints are innervated by the medial branches of the dorsal rami . Zygapophysial ( facet ) joints have been implicated as the source of chronic pain in 15 % to 45 % of the patients with chronic low back pain , 54 % to 60 % of the patients with chronic neck pain and 48 % of the patients with thoracic pain . A systematic review of the evidence of effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation in the management of chronic spinal pain was undertaken . This review included r and omized clinical trials , as well as non-r and omized or observational studies in the analysis . Literature search included MEDLINE , EMBASE , systematic review s , narrative review s , cross-references to the review s and various published trials ; and peer review ed abstract s from scientific meetings during the past two years . An algorithmic approach was followed in study evaluation with a description of inclusion and exclusion criteria . A set of high-performing scales or checklists pertaining to r and omized clinical trials and observational trials derived from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality ( AHRQ ) was utilized ; Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence . Qualitative analysis was conducted , using five levels of evidence for effectiveness of medial branch neurotomy . Our search strategy identified over 1,000 citations as the result of electronic and manual screening . A total of 7 r and omized trials of radiofrequency neurotomy for spinal pain were identified . However , only 4 related to medial branch neurotomy . Two of the four met the inclusion criteria . Among the multiple observational studies considered for inclusion , 4 prospect i ve evaluations were included in the systematic review . In addition , 3 retrospective evaluations were also included . Two r and omized trials comprised of 27 patients receiving active treatment . The first study consisted of cervical facet joint pain and the second consisted of lumbar facet joint pain . Both studies showed positive results . Similar to r and omized trials , prospect i ve , as well as retrospective evaluations showed positive evidence , both in short-term and long-term . The results of this systematic review of 2 well- design ed r and omized trials , 4 prospect i ve well- design ed trials without r and omization and 3 retrospective evaluations provided strong evidence that radiofrequency denervation offers short-term relief and moderate evidence of long-term pain relief of facet joint origin Abstract Purpose We conducted a systematic review to critically appraise and synthesize literature on the effectiveness of work disability prevention ( WDP ) interventions in workers with neck pain , whiplash-associated disorders ( WAD ) , or upper extremity disorders . Methods We search ed electronic data bases from 1990 to 2012 . R and om pairs of independent review ers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria . Scientifically admissible studies were summarized and synthesized following best- evidence synthesis methodology . Results Of the 6,359 articles retrieved , 16 r and omized controlled trials were eligible for critical appraisal and five were admissible . We found that a return-to-work coordination program ( including workplace-based work hardening ) was superior to clinic-based work hardening for persistent rotator cuff tendinitis . Workplace high-intensity strength training and workplace advice had similar outcomes for neck and shoulder pain . Mensendieck/Cesar postural exercises and strength and fitness exercises had similar outcomes for non-specific work-related upper limb complaints . Adding a brief job stress education program to a workplace ergonomic intervention was not beneficial for persistent upper extremity symptoms . Adding computer-prompted work breaks to ergonomic adjustments and workplace education benefited workers ’ recovery from recent work-related neck and upper extremity complaints . Conclusions At present , no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the effectiveness of WDP interventions for managing neck pain , WAD , and upper extremity disorders . Our review suggests a return-to-work coordination program is more effective than clinic-based work hardening . Also , adding computer-prompted breaks to ergonomic and workplace interventions benefits workers ’ recovery . The current quality of evidence does not allow for a definitive evaluation of the effectiveness of ergonomic interventions Study Design . A r and omized trial . Objective . To evaluate the effectiveness of a semi-intensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain in an outpatient setting . Summary and Background Data . Systematic review s have shown that there is strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary treatment ( > 100 hours ) , which includes functional restoration , improves function among chronic patients with low back pain , and moderate evidence that it reduces pain but contradictory evidence regarding improvement of working ability . However , there is paucity of data whether semi-intensive outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation in groups is more effective than individual physiotherapy . Material s and Methods . A total of 120 women employed as healthcare and social care professionals with nonspecific chronic low back pain were recruited from two occupational healthcare centers . The patients were r and omized into two intervention programs . Multidisciplinary rehabilitation ( n = 59 ) was conducted in groups and comprised of physical training , workplace interventions , back school , relaxation training , and cognitive-behavioral stress management methods for 70 hours . The individual physiotherapy ( n = 61 ) included physical exercise and passive treatment methods administered for 10 hours . Main outcome measures were : back pain and sciatic pain intensity , disability , sick leaves , healthcare consumption , symptoms of depression , and beliefs of working ability after 2 years . Results . There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups in main outcome measures just after rehabilitation , at 6- , at 12- , or 24-month follow-up . In both intervention arms , however , the before- and -after comparison showed favorable effects , and the effects were still maintained at 2 years follow-up . Conclusions . The results of this study indicate that semilight outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for female chronic low back pain patients does not offer incremental benefits when compared with rehabilitation carried out by a physiotherapist having a cognitive-behavioral way of administering the treatment Long-term  sickness absence and incapacity benefits ( disability pension ) rates have increased across industrialised countries . Effective measures are needed to support return to work . The recommendations of this guidance were informed by the most appropriate available evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness . Public health evidence was provided by research using a variety of study design s that attempted to determine the outcome of a particular intervention by evaluating status before and after the intervention had been effected , and was not limited to r and omised control trials . Where the evidence base was depleted or underdeveloped , expert witnesses were called to give their opinion on the best available evidence and emerging interventions . The process enabled challenge and contestability from stakeholder groups at different points as the guidance was developed . Forty-five heterogeneous studies were included in the review of interventions to reduce long-term sickness absence and transitions from short-term to long-term absence ( mainly covering the former and also mainly examining musculoskeletal conditions ) . The analysis of evidence was restricted to descriptive synthesis . Three general themes emerged from an analysis of the studies that were more likely to report positive results : early interventions ; multidisciplinary approaches ; and interventions with a workplace component . Two further review s were undertaken , one on interventions to reduce the re-occurrence of sickness absence , which identified seven studies on lower back pain , and concluded that early intervention and direct workplace input are important factors . The final evidence review focused on six studies of interventions for those in receipt of incapacity benefit . The evidence was that work-focused interviews coupled with access to tailored support are effective and cost-effective interventions . Practitioners should consider the impact of interventions and management options on work ability for patients of working age . Work ability should be considered a key outcome for future intervention studies Low  back pain  has long been described as a challenge for both primary care physicians and specialists . Management of  low back pain  has also been criticized as frequently arbitrary , inappropriate , or ineffective . Contributing factors have been an inadequate evidence base and a need for more rigorous appraisal s of the available literature . Evidence -based medicine , an approach to clinical problem solving , is predicated on the premise that high- quality health care will result from practice s consistent with the best evidence . In contrast to the traditional medical paradigm that placed a heavy reliance on expert opinion , authority , and un systematic clinical observations , evidence -based medicine emphasizes the need for rigorous critical appraisal s of the scientific literature to inform medical decision making . Evidence -based medicine places strong weight on the requirement for valid studies , particularly r and omized controlled trials , to appropriately evaluate the effectiveness of health care interventions . Because of the rapidly increasing volume of medical literature , however , most clinicians are unable to keep up-to- date with all the new data . Two types of preprocessed evidence that can aid busy clinicians in medical decision making are systematic review s and evidence -based clinical practice guidelines . Like primary studies , systematic review s and clinical practice guidelines must adhere to high method ologic st and ards to reduce error and bias . As in other areas of medicine , the approach to the management of low back pain has been positively affected by the availability of more clinical trials and better use of critical appraisal techniques to evaluate and apply research findings . In addition to more rigorous primary studies , an increasing number of high- quality systematic review s and evidence -based clinical practice guidelines for low back pain are also available . Although some research gaps and method ologic shortcomings persist , the richer evidence base has greatly improved our underst and ing of what does and does not work for low back pain . Despite these advances , the best available evidence often does not inform everyday clinical decisions for low back pain . Nonetheless , there is widespread agreement that adherence to evidence -based practice will help improve low back pain patient outcomes and reduce arbitrary variations in care . This article review s basic principles of evidence -based medicine , discusses evidence -based medicine in the context of low back pain management , and summarizes some useful evidence -based medicine re sources Study Design . Clinical practice guideline . Objective . To develop evidence -based recommendations on use of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies , surgeries , and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain of any duration , with or without leg pain . Summary of Background Data . Management of patients with persistent and disabling low back pain remains a clinical challenge . A number of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies and surgery are available and their use is increasing , but in some cases their utility remains uncertain or controversial . Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has also been proposed as a potentially effective noninvasive intervention for persistent and disabling low back pain . Methods . A multidisciplinary panel was convened by the American Pain Society . Its recommendations were based on a systematic review that focused on evidence from r and omized controlled trials . Recommendations were grade d using methods adapted from the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Grading of Recommendations , Assessment , Development , and Evaluation Working Group . Results . Investigators review ed 3348 abstract s. A total of 161 r and omized trials were deemed relevant to the recommendations in this guideline . The panel developed a total of 8 recommendations . Conclusion . Recommendations on use of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies , surgery , and interdisciplinary rehabilitation are presented . Due to important trade-offs between potential benefits , harms , costs , and burdens of alternative therapies , shared decision-making is an important component of a number of the recommendations A systematic review revealed three small r and omised controlled trials of  yoga  for  low back pain  , all of which showed effects on back pain that favoured the yoga group . To build on these studies a larger trial , with longer term follow-up , and a number of different yoga teachers delivering the intervention is required . This study protocol describes the details of a r and omised controlled trial ( RCT ) to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Yoga for chronic Low Back Pain , which is funded by Arthritis Research Campaign ( arc ) and is being conducted by the University of York . 262 patients will be recruited from GP practice s in 5 centres in Engl and . Patients will be r and omised to receive usual care or 12 weekly classes of yoga .  A yoga programme will be devised that can be delivered by yoga teachers of the two main national yoga organisations in the UK ( British Wheel of Yoga and Iyengar Yoga Association ( UK ) ) . Trial registration : Current controlled trials registry IS RCT N81079604 ( date registered 30/03/2007 ) Abstract This study established the effectiveness of a workplace multifaceted intervention consisting of participatory ergonomics , physical training , and cognitive – behavioural training ( CBT ) for  low back pain ( LBP ) . Between November 2012 and May 2014 , we conducted a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster r and omised controlled trial with 594 workers from eldercare workplaces ( nursing homes and home care ) r and omised to 4 successive time periods , 3 months apart . The intervention lasted 12 weeks and consisted of 19 sessions in total ( physical training [ 12 sessions ] , CBT [ 2 sessions ] , and participatory ergonomics [ 5 sessions ] ) . Low back pain was the outcome and was measured as days , intensity ( worst pain on a 0 - 10 numeric rank scale ) , and bothersomeness ( days ) by monthly text messages . Linear mixed models were used to estimate the intervention effect . Analyses were performed according to intention to treat , including all eligible r and omised participants , and were adjusted for baseline values of the outcome . The linear mixed models yielded significant effects on LBP days of −0.8 ( 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , −1.19 to −0.38 ) , LBP intensity of −0.4 ( 95 % CI , −0.60 to −0.26 ) , and bothersomeness days of −0.5 ( 95 % CI , −0.85 to −0.13 ) after the intervention compared with the control group . This study shows that a multifaceted intervention consisting of participatory ergonomics , physical training , and CBT can reduce LBP among workers in eldercare . Thus , multifaceted interventions may be relevant for improving LBP in a working population Study Design . Cluster r and omized controlled trial with 6 and 8 quarters of follow-up . Objective . To test the effects of giving evidence -based information addressing psychosocial risk factors for pain-related disability and of screening workplaces for physical health hazards at work on reducing new episodes and duration of pain-related and general absence taking . Summary of Background Data . The “ flag strategy ” for h and ling low back pain problems is recommended in many Western countries but , so far , r and omized intervention studies addressing psychosocial risk factors for disability related to low back pain show mixed results . Methods . We followed employees from 39 different work sites in western Denmark , who had received interventions consisting of either a carefully prepared booklet providing evidence -based information on common musculoskeletal pain problems alone or in combination with systematic workplace screening for physical work hazards .  Absence due to pain for at least 7 days and the cumulative numbers of absence days were the main outcome measures . General absence taking was analyzed , too . Company registration s of sickness absence in combination with self-report on the cause of a given absence spell was used to inform absence spells . Results . A total of 3808 of 4006 eligible employees provided information . Among 1063 participants in the control arm , 1458 in the information arm , and 1287 in the  information and workplace screening  arm , 4.6 % , 6.9 % , and 4.6 % , respectively , experienced pain-related absence , and 27.8 % , 27.2 % , and 24.0 % , respectively , experienced general absence taking during follow-up . No positive effect on the risk of the 2 measures of absence or on the cumulative duration of absence among cases was seen . Conclusion . Results did not support population -based interventions addressing psychosocial risk factors for pain-related disability alone or in combination with workplace screening as effective in reducing the risk of pain-related absence taking or the duration of absence BACKGROUND CONTEXT Low back pain ( LBP ) is a prevalent disorder in society that has been associated with increased loss of work time and medical expenses . A common intervention for LBP is spinal manipulation , a technique that is not specific to one scope of practice or profession . PURPOSE The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of physical therapy spinal manipulations for the treatment of patients with low back pain . METHODS A search of the current literature was conducted using PubMed , CINAHL , SPORTD iscus , Pro Quest Nursing and Allied Health Source , Scopus , and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register . Studies were included if each involved : 1 ) individuals with LBP ; 2 ) spinal manipulations performed by physical therapists compared to any control group that did not receive manipulations ; 3 ) measurable clinical outcomes or efficiency of treatment measures , and 4 ) r and omized control trials . The quality of included articles was determined by two independent authors using the criteria developed and used by the Physiotherapy Evidence Data base ( PEDro ) . RESULTS Six r and omized control trials met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review . The most commonly used outcomes in these studies were some variation of pain rating scales and disability indexes . Notable results included varying degrees of effect sizes favoring physical therapy spinal manipulations and minimal adverse events result ing from this intervention . Additionally , the manipulation group in one study reported statistically significantly less medication use , health care utilization , and lost work time . CONCLUSION Based on the findings of this systematic review there is evidence to support the use of spinal manipulation by physical therapists in clinical practice . Physical therapy spinal manipulation appears to be a safe intervention that improves clinical outcomes for patients with low back pain Objectives Workplace exercise interventions are known to reduce musculoskeletal complaints and are widely offered to promote employee`s health . The psychosocial effects of such interventions are not clear . This review evaluates the effects of workplace exercise interventions on the psychosocial work environment and mental health . Methods A systematic review was performed by screening four scientific data bases ( Pubmed , Cochrane Data base , PsycINFO and Web of Science ) for published r and omized controlled trials in English from 1998 - 2018 . The review followed the PRISMA statement guidelines using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias and the GRADE approach for assessment of quality . Two research ers independently performed data base search , study screening , and evaluation . Results Twenty two r and omized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria . Substantial heterogenicity in the studies included was found in study population s , types of intervention , and outcome measures performed . Quality assessment revealed a generally low level of quality in the studies included . This was partly the result of the limited possibilities for blinding and the self-reported outcome measures . Conclusion Workplace exercise interventions seem to have limited effects on mental health and the psychosocial work environment . Future studies should incorporate blinding and independent outcome measures Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of an integrated care programme , combining a patient directed and a workplace directed intervention , for patients with chronic low back pain . Design Population based r and omised controlled trial . Setting Primary care ( 10 physiotherapy practice s , one occupational health service , one occupational therapy practice ) and secondary care ( five hospitals ) . Participants 134 adults aged 18 - 65 sick listed for at least 12 weeks owing to low back pain . Intervention Patients were r and omly assigned to usual care ( n=68 ) or integrated care ( n=66 ) . Integrated care consisted of a workplace intervention based on participatory ergonomics , involving a supervisor , and a grade d activity programme based on cognitive behavioural principles . Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the duration of time off work ( work disability ) due to low back pain until full sustainable return to work . Secondary outcome measures were intensity of pain and functional status . Results The median duration until sustainable return to work was 88 days in the integrated care group compared with 208 days in the usual care group ( P=0.003 ) . Integrated care was effective on return to work ( hazard ratio 1.9 , 95 % confidence interval 1.2 to 2.8 , P=0.004 ) . After 12 months , patients in the integrated care group improved significantly more on functional status compared with patients in the usual care group ( P=0.01 ) . Improvement of pain between the groups did not differ significantly . Conclusion The integrated care programme substantially reduced disability due to chronic low back pain in private and working life . Trial registration Current Controlled Trials IS RCT N28478651 Study Design . Population ‐based r and omized clinical trial . Objectives . To develop and test a model of management of subacute back pain , to prevent prolonged disability . Summary of Background Data . The present management of back pain seems inadequate , and development of innovative models has been urged . Methods . A model for the treatment of subacute work‐related back pain has been developed and evaluated in a population ‐based r and omized clinical trial . Workers ( n = 130 ) from eligible workplaces in the Sherbrooke area ( N = 31 ) , who had been absent from work for more than 4 weeks for back pain , were r and omized , based on their workplace , in one of four treatment groups : usual care , clinical intervention , occupational intervention , and full intervention ( a combination of the last two ) . The duration of absence from regular work and from any work was evaluated using survival analysis . Functional status and pain were compared at study entry and after 1 year of follow‐up . Results . The full intervention group returned to regular work 2.41 times faster than the usual care intervention group ( 95 % confidence interval 1.19‐4.89 ; P = 0.01 ) . The specific effect of the occupational intervention accounted for the most important part of this result , with a rate ratio of return to regular work of 1.91 ( 95 % confidence interval = 1.18‐3.10 ; P < 0.01 ) . Pain and disability scales demonstrated either a statistically significant reduction or a trend toward reduction in the three intervention groups , compared with the trend in the usual care intervention group . Conclusions . Close association of occupational intervention with clinical care is of primary importance in impeding progression toward chronicity of low back pain
The trials suggest that work place exercise is effective , braces and education are ineffective , and workplace modification plus education is of unknown value in preventing low back pain
A systematic review of r and omised controlled trials was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of  workplace interventions  to prevent low back pain .