Eleni Solidaki

Disabling musculoskeletal pain in working populations: is it the job, the person, or the culture?

&NA; Large international variation in the prevalence of disabling forearm and low back pain was only partially explained by established personal and socioeconomic risk factors. &NA; To compare the prevalence of disabling low back pain (DLBP) and disabling wrist/hand pain (DWHP) among groups of workers carrying out similar physical activities in different cultural environments, and to explore explanations for observed differences, we conducted a cross‐sectional survey in 18 countries. Standardised questionnaires were used to ascertain pain that interfered with everyday activities and exposure to possible risk factors in 12,426 participants from 47 occupational groups (mostly nurses and office workers). Associations with risk factors were assessed by Poisson regression. The 1‐month prevalence of DLBP in nurses varied from 9.6% to 42.6%, and that of DWHP in office workers from 2.2% to 31.6%. Rates of disabling pain at the 2 anatomical sites covaried (r = 0.76), but DLBP tended to be relatively more common in nurses and DWHP in office workers. Established risk factors such as occupational physical activities, psychosocial aspects of work, and tendency to somatise were confirmed, and associations were found also with adverse health beliefs and group awareness of people outside work with musculoskeletal pain. However, after allowance for these risk factors, an up‐to 8‐fold difference in prevalence remained. Systems of compensation for work‐related illness and financial support for health‐related incapacity for work appeared to have little influence on the occurrence of symptoms. Our findings indicate large international variation in the prevalence of disabling forearm and back pain among occupational groups carrying out similar tasks, which is only partially explained by the personal and socioeconomic risk factors that were analysed.

Descriptive Epidemiology of Somatising Tendency: Findings from the CUPID Study

Somatising tendency, defined as a predisposition to worry about common somatic symptoms, is importantly associated with various aspects of health and health-related behaviour, including musculoskeletal pain and associated disability. To explore its epidemiological characteristics, and how it can be specified most efficiently, we analysed data from an international longitudinal study. A baseline questionnaire, which included questions from the Brief Symptom Inventory about seven common symptoms, was completed by 12,072 participants aged 20–59 from 46 occupational groups in 18 countries (response rate 70%). The seven symptoms were all mutually associated (odds ratios for pairwise associations 3.4 to 9.3), and each contributed to a measure of somatising tendency that exhibited an exposure-response relationship both with multi-site pain (prevalence rate ratios up to six), and also with sickness absence for non-musculoskeletal reasons. In most participants, the level of somatising tendency was little changed when reassessed after a mean interval of 14 months (75% having a change of 0 or 1 in their symptom count), although the specific symptoms reported at follow-up often differed from those at baseline. Somatising tendency was more common in women than men, especially at older ages, and varied markedly across the 46 occupational groups studied, with higher rates in South and Central America. It was weakly associated with smoking, but not with level of education. Our study supports the use of questions from the Brief Symptom Inventory as a method for measuring somatising tendency, and suggests that in adults of working age, it is a fairly stable trait.

Patterns of multisite pain and associations with risk factors

Summary In a large cross‐sectional survey, pain affecting 6–10 anatomical sites showed substantially different associations with risk factors from pain limited to 1–3 sites. ABSTRACT To explore definitions for multisite pain, and compare associations with risk factors for different patterns of musculoskeletal pain, we analysed cross‐sectional data from the Cultural and Psychosocial Influences on Disability (CUPID) study. The study sample comprised 12,410 adults aged 20–59 years from 47 occupational groups in 18 countries. A standardised questionnaire was used to collect information about pain in the past month at each of 10 anatomical sites, and about potential risk factors. Associations with pain outcomes were assessed by Poisson regression, and characterised by prevalence rate ratios (PRRs). Extensive pain, affecting 6–10 anatomical sites, was reported much more frequently than would be expected if the occurrence of pain at each site were independent (674 participants vs 41.9 expected). In comparison with pain involving only 1–3 sites, it showed much stronger associations (relative to no pain) with risk factors such as female sex (PRR 1.6 vs 1.1), older age (PRR 2.6 vs 1.1), somatising tendency (PRR 4.6 vs 1.3), and exposure to multiple physically stressing occupational activities (PRR 5.0 vs 1.4). After adjustment for number of sites with pain, these risk factors showed no additional association with a distribution of pain that was widespread according to the frequently used American College of Rheumatology criteria. Our analysis supports the classification of pain at multiple anatomical sites simply by the number of sites affected, and suggests that extensive pain differs importantly in its associations with risk factors from pain that is limited to only a small number of anatomical sites.

The CUPID (Cultural and Psychosocial Influences on Disability) Study: Methods of Data Collection and Characteristics of Study Sample

Background The CUPID (Cultural and Psychosocial Influences on Disability) study was established to explore the hypothesis that common musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and associated disability are importantly influenced by culturally determined health beliefs and expectations. This paper describes the methods of data collection and various characteristics of the study sample. Methods/Principal Findings A standardised questionnaire covering musculoskeletal symptoms, disability and potential risk factors, was used to collect information from 47 samples of nurses, office workers, and other (mostly manual) workers in 18 countries from six continents. In addition, local investigators provided data on economic aspects of employment for each occupational group. Participation exceeded 80% in 33 of the 47 occupational groups, and after pre-specified exclusions, analysis was based on 12,426 subjects (92 to 1018 per occupational group). As expected, there was high usage of computer keyboards by office workers, while nurses had the highest prevalence of heavy manual lifting in all but one country. There was substantial heterogeneity between occupational groups in economic and psychosocial aspects of work; three- to five-fold variation in awareness of someone outside work with musculoskeletal pain; and more than ten-fold variation in the prevalence of adverse health beliefs about back and arm pain, and in awareness of terms such as “repetitive strain injury” (RSI). Conclusions/Significance The large differences in psychosocial risk factors (including knowledge and beliefs about MSDs) between occupational groups should allow the study hypothesis to be addressed effectively.

Risk factors for new onset and persistence of multi-site musculoskeletal pain in a longitudinal study of workers in Crete

Objectives To explore occupational and psychological risk factors for the incidence and persistence of multi-site musculoskeletal pain. Methods We conducted a longitudinal investigation of three occupational groups in Crete, Greece. Baseline information was obtained at interview about pain in the past year at each of six anatomical sites, and about possible risk factors for subsequent symptoms. Twelve months later, subjects were re-interviewed about pain at the same anatomical sites in the past month. Pain at two or more sites was classed as multi-site. Associations with new development and persistence of multi-site pain at follow-up were assessed by logistic regression. Results Analysis was based on 518 subjects (87% of those originally selected for study). At follow-up, multi-site pain persisted in 217 (62%) of those who had experienced it in the year before baseline, and was newly developed in 27 (17%) of those who had not. Persistence of multi-site pain was significantly related to physical loading at work, somatising tendency and beliefs about work as a cause of musculoskeletal pain, with OR (95% CI) for the highest relative to the lowest exposure categories of 2.3 (1.0 to 5.6), 2.6 (1.5 to 4.6) and 1.9 (1.1 to 3.3) respectively. Development of new multi-site pain was most strongly associated with working for ≥40 h per week (OR 5.0, 95% CI 1.1 to 24.0). Conclusions Our findings confirm the importance of both physical loading at work and somatising tendency as risk factors for multi-site pain, and suggest that persistence of pain is also influenced by adverse beliefs about work causation.

Classification of neck/shoulder pain in epidemiological research: a comparison of personal and occupational characteristics, disability and prognosis among 12,195 workers from 18 countries

Abstract To inform case definition for neck/shoulder pain in epidemiological research, we compared levels of disability, patterns of association, and prognosis for pain that was limited to the neck or shoulders (LNSP) and more generalised musculoskeletal pain that involved the neck or shoulder(s) (GPNS). Baseline data on musculoskeletal pain, disability, and potential correlates were collected by questionnaire from 12,195 workers in 47 occupational groups (mostly office workers, nurses, and manual workers) in 18 countries (response rate = 70%). Continuing pain after a mean interval of 14 months was ascertained through a follow-up questionnaire in 9150 workers from 45 occupational groups. Associations with personal and occupational factors were assessed by Poisson regression and summarised by prevalence rate ratios (PRRs). The 1-month prevalence of GPNS at baseline was much greater than that of LNSP (35.1% vs 5.6%), and it tended to be more troublesome and disabling. Unlike LNSP, the prevalence of GPNS increased with age. Moreover, it showed significantly stronger associations with somatising tendency (PRR 1.6 vs 1.3) and poor mental health (PRR 1.3 vs 1.1); greater variation between the occupational groups studied (prevalence ranging from 0% to 67.6%) that correlated poorly with the variation in LNSP; and was more persistent at follow-up (72.1% vs 61.7%). Our findings highlight important epidemiological distinctions between subcategories of neck/shoulder pain. In future epidemiological research that bases case definitions on symptoms, it would be useful to distinguish pain that is localised to the neck or shoulder from more generalised pain that happens to involve the neck/shoulder region.

Epidemiological Differences between Localized and Nonlocalized Low Back Pain

Study Design. A cross-sectional survey with a longitudinal follow-up. Objectives. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that pain, which is localized to the low back, differs epidemiologically from that which occurs simultaneously or close in time to pain at other anatomical sites Summary of Background Data. Low back pain (LBP) often occurs in combination with other regional pain, with which it shares similar psychological and psychosocial risk factors. However, few previous epidemiological studies of LBP have distinguished pain that is confined to the low back from that which occurs as part of a wider distribution of pain. Methods. We analyzed data from CUPID, a cohort study that used baseline and follow-up questionnaires to collect information about musculoskeletal pain, associated disability, and potential risk factors, in 47 occupational groups (office workers, nurses, and others) from 18 countries. Results. Among 12,197 subjects at baseline, 609 (4.9%) reported localized LBP in the past month, and 3820 (31.3%) nonlocalized LBP. Nonlocalized LBP was more frequently associated with sciatica in the past month (48.1% vs. 30.0% of cases), occurred on more days in the past month and past year, was more often disabling for everyday activities (64.1% vs. 47.3% of cases), and had more frequently led to medical consultation and sickness absence from work. It was also more often persistent when participants were followed up after a mean of 14 months (65.6% vs. 54.1% of cases). In adjusted Poisson regression analyses, nonlocalized LBP was differentially associated with risk factors, particularly female sex, older age, and somatizing tendency. There were also marked differences in the relative prevalence of localized and nonlocalized LBP by occupational group. Conclusion. Future epidemiological studies should distinguish where possible between pain that is limited to the low back and LBP that occurs in association with pain at other anatomical locations. Level of Evidence: 2

Evidence of dysregulated affect indicated by high alexithymia in obstructive sleep apnea.

Alexithymia refers to dysregulation of affect characterized by difficulty in identifying and expressing emotions. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by increased medical/psychiatric comorbidity and possibly by affect dysregulation. In the present case‐control study, we examined alexithymia levels with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS‐20) in 23 psychiatrically uncomplicated OSA outpatients and 23 same gender controls one‐to‐one matched for age, education and subjective depressive symptomatology. General health/quality of life was assessed with the Short‐Form 36 Health Survey (SF‐36) in the patient group. Hierarchical multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the association of alexithymia with the presence of OSA, and clinical and polysomnographic parameters of this condition. TAS‐20 total and subscale scores were associated positively with Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)‐21 and negatively with SF‐36 scores. After adjusting for all confounders, OSA was positively associated with total TAS‐20 score, ‘expressing feelings’ and ‘externally oriented thinking’ subscales. The latter was associated with increased sleepiness and reduced blood oxygenation in the OSA group. Finally, ‘difficulty describing feelings’ and ‘externally oriented thinking’ significantly predicted risk for OSA. Alexithymia is higher in non‐psychiatrically ill patients with OSA compared with carefully matched controls even after adjustment for subjective depressive symptoms and demographic confounders. Total alexithymia is associated with greater subjective depression and poor general health/quality of life, while ‘externally oriented thinking’ is associated with disease severity and together with ‘difficulty describing feelings’ may be vulnerability factors for OSA, although reverse causality cannot be excluded.