Helen Harcombe

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.

Physical and psychosocial risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders in New Zealand nurses, postal workers and office workers

Objective To investigate the association of physical and psychosocial risk factors with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in New Zealand nurses, postal workers and office workers. Design A cross-sectional postal survey asking about demographic, physical and psychosocial factors and MSDs. Participants A total of 911 participants was randomly selected; nurses from the Nursing Council of New Zealand database (n=280), postal workers from their employers database (n=280) and office workers from the 2005 electoral roll (n=351). Outcome Measures Self-reported pain in the low back, neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist/hand or knee lasting more than 1 day in the month before the survey. Results The response rate was 58%, 443 from 770 potential participants. 70% (n=310) reported at least one MSDs. Physical work tasks were associated with low back (odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.6), shoulder (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.69), elbow (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.83) and wrist/hand pain (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.69). Job strain had the strongest association with neck pain (OR 3.46, 95% CI 1.30 to 9.21) and wrist/hand pain. Somatisation was weakly associated with MSDs at most sites. Better general and mental health status were weakly associated with lower odds of MSDs. Conclusions In injury prevention and rehabilitation the physical nature of the work needs to be addressed for most MSDs, with modest decreases in risk seemingly possible. Addressing job strain could provide significant benefit for those with neck and wrist/hand pain, while the effects of somatisation and the promotion of good mental health may provide smaller but global benefits.

Prevalence and impact of musculoskeletal disorders in New Zealand nurses, postal workers and office workers.

Objectives: To describe the prevalence, characteristics and impact of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in New Zealand nurses, postal workers and office workers.

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.

Musculoskeletal disorders among nurses compared with two other occupational groups

BACKGROUND There is a high incidence of low back pain (LBP) among nurses. However, few longitudinal studies have investigated musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) at other anatomical sites in nurses. AIMS To describe the cumulative incidence and persistence/recurrence of MSDs of the low back, neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist/hand and knee among New Zealand nurses, to investigate the impact of MSDs on work and functional tasks and to compare findings for nurses with those in postal workers and office workers. METHODS Participants completed a postal survey at baseline and again 1 year later. Information was collected about MSDs in the previous 1 month and 12 months and about the ability to attend work, undertake work duties and perform functional tasks. RESULTS Among nurses, the low back was the site with the highest cumulative incidence and highest prevalence of persistent/recurrent, work-disabling and functional-task-disabling pain. Work-disabling LBP was more prevalent among nurses and postal workers than office workers (P < 0.001). Nurses had a substantial prevalence of work-disabling shoulder pain (10%) and functional-task-disabling knee (19%) and wrist/hand pain (16%). With the exception of the elbow, each occupational group had a high prevalence of persistent/recurrent MSDs at all anatomical sites. CONCLUSIONS LBP continues to have a substantial impact among nurses. Other less commonly considered MSDs, such as shoulder, wrist/hand and knee pain, also made work or functional tasks difficult, suggesting that primary and secondary prevention efforts should consider MSDs at other anatomical sites as well as the low back.

Factors predictive of subsequent injury in a longitudinal cohort study

Objectives The aims are to: (1) Determine the cumulative incidence of self-reported subsequent injury (of any anatomical site or injury type) occurring between 3 months and 12 months after a sentinel injury among participants in the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study in New Zealand and (2) Examine the preinjury and injury-related predictors of subsequent injury. Methods Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study participants (n=2282) were interviewed 3 months, 5 months and 12 months after a sentinel injury event. Data were collected about a range of preinjury and injury-related factors at the 3-month interview and about subsequent injury at the 5-month and 12-month interviews. Poisson regression modelling was used to determine the preinjury and injury-related predictors of subsequent injury. Results Between the 3-month and 12 month interviews 28% of the participants reported at least one subsequent injury. Subsequent injury was 34% more likely among participants with a prior injury affecting them at the time of the sentinel injury compared with participants without a prior injury affecting them, and more likely among non-workers (31% more likely) and trade/manual workers (32% more likely) compared with professionals. Participants whose sentinel injury was due to assault were 43% more likely to report a subsequent injury compared with those whose sentinel injury was accidental. A subsequent injury was 23% less likely if the sentinel injury was a lower extremity fracture compared with other injuries, and 21% less likely if the sentinel injury event involved hospitalisation. Conclusions Among general injury populations it may be possible to identify people at increased risk for subsequent injury.

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.

Subsequent Injury Study (SInS): Improving outcomes for injured New Zealanders

Background Subsequent injury (SI) is a major contributor to disability and costs for individuals and society. Aim To identify modifiable risk factors predictive of SI and SI health and disability outcomes and costs. Objectives To (1) describe the nature of SIs reported to New Zealands no-fault injury insurer (the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)); (2) identify characteristics of people underaccessing ACC for SI; (3) determine factors predicting or protecting against SI; and (4) investigate outcomes for individuals, and costs to society, in relation to SI. Design Prospective cohort study. Methods Previously collected data will be linked including data from interviews undertaken as part of the earlier Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study (POIS), ACC electronic data and national hospitalisation data about SI. POIS participants (N=2856, including 566 Māori) were recruited via ACCs injury register following an injury serious enough to warrant compensation entitlements. We will examine SI over the following 24 months for these participants using descriptive and inferential statistics including multivariable generalised linear models and Coxs proportional hazards regression. Discussion Subsequent Injury Study (SInS) will deliver information about the risks, protective factors and outcomes related to SI for New Zealanders. As a result of sourcing injury data from New Zealands ‘all injury’ insurer ACC, SInS includes people who have been hospitalised and not hospitalised for injury. Consequently, SInS will provide insights that are novel internationally as other studies are usually confined to examining trauma registries, specific injuries or injured workers who are covered by a workplace insurer rather than a ‘real-world’ injury population.