This systematic review aimed to examine pain, functional status and return to work after a multidisciplinary intervention, with or without additional workplace intervention, for (sub)acute low back pain among adults.
Data sources
A comprehensive search was completed (November 2022) in six electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, CENTRAL and Scopus) and in the reference list of all identified studies.
Review methods
The search results were screened against predefined eligibility criteria by two independent researchers. Included articles were systematic reviews or randomized controlled trials examining the effect of a multidisciplinary intervention, with or without workplace intervention, in working adults with (sub)acute low back pain. Relevant information was summarized and clustered, and the methodological quality and certainty of evidence were assessed respectively using the RoB 2-tool, the ROBIS tool and the GRADE criteria.
Results
The search resulted in a total of 3020 articles. After the screening process, 12 studies remained (11 randomized controlled trials and 1 systematic review), which studied overall 2751 patients, with a follow-up period of at least 12 months.
Conclusions
A multidisciplinary intervention is favorable compared to usual care for pain intensity and functional status but this is less clear for return to work. Comparable work-related effects were found when comparing a multidisciplinary intervention with a less extensive intervention, whereas uncertainties exist regarding outcomes of pain intensity and functional status. Furthermore, adding a workplace intervention to usual care and subdividing patients based on work-related characteristics seems beneficial for return to work.
WuAMarchLZhengX, et al. Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann Transl Med2020; 8: 299–299.
2.
JordanKPKadamUTHaywardR, et al. Annual consultation prevalence of regional musculoskeletal problems in primary care: an observational study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2010; 11: 144–144.
3.
BardinLDKingPMaherCG. Diagnostic triage for low back pain: a practical approach for primary care. Med J Aust2017; 206: 268–273
4.
HoyDBainCWilliamsG, et al. A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum2012; 64: 2028–2037.
5.
MaherCUnderwoodMBuchbinderR. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet2017; 389: 736–747
6.
KoesBWvan TulderMLinC-WC, et al. An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care. Eur Spine J2010; 19: 2075–2094.
7.
DielemanJLBaralRBirgerM, et al. US Spending on personal health care and public health, 1996-2013. JAMA2016; 316: 2627–2646.
8.
NielensHVan ZundertJMairiauxP, et al. Chronic Low Back Pain. Good Clinical Practice (GCP). Report no. 48A, 2006. Brussels: Belgian Healthcare Knowledge Center (KCE).
9.
CoggonDNtaniGVargas-PradaS, et al. International variation in absence from work attributed to musculoskeletal illness: findings from the CUPID study. Occup Environ Med2013; 70: 75.
10.
MaherCG. A systematic review of workplace interventions to prevent low back pain. Aust J Physiother2000; 46: 259–269. 2001/10/26.
11.
AlmeidaMSaragiottoBRichardsB, et al. Primary care management of non-specific low back pain: key messages from recent clinical guidelines. Med J Aust2018; 208: 272–275. 2018/04/05.
12.
daCMenezes CostaLMaherCG, , et al. The prognosis of acute and persistent low-back pain: a meta-analysis. CMAJ2012; 184: E613–E624. 2012/05/14.
O’ConnellNECookCEWandBM, et al. Clinical guidelines for low back pain: a critical review of consensus and inconsistencies across three major guidelines. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol2016; 30: 968–980. 2017/11/07.
15.
FritzJMMagelJSMcFaddenM, et al. Early physical therapy vs usual care in patients with recent-onset low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. Jama2015; 314: 1459–1467. 2015/10/16.
16.
van VilsterenMvan OostromSHde VetHC, et al. Workplace interventions to prevent work disability in workers on sick leave. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2015;10: Cd006955. 2015/10/06. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006955.pub3
17.
CarrollCRickJPilgrimH, et al. Workplace involvement improves return to work rates among employees with back pain on long-term sick leave: a systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions. Disabil Rehabil2010; 32: 607–621. 2010/03/09.
18.
FrancheR-LBarilRShawW, et al. Workplace-Based return-to-work interventions: optimizing the role of stakeholders in implementation and research. J Occup Rehabil2005; 15: 525–542.
19.
HaugliLMaelandSMagnussenLH. What facilitates return to work? Patients experiences 3 years after occupational rehabilitation. J Occup Rehabil2011; 21: 573–581.
20.
LambeekLCvan MechelenWKnolDL, et al. Randomised controlled trial of integrated care to reduce disability from chronic low back pain in working and private life. Br Med J2010; 340: c1035.
21.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J2021; n71. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
SterneJACSavovićJPageMJ, et al. Rob 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J2019; 366: l4898. 2019/08/30.
26.
SterneJAHernánMAReevesBC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Br Med J2016; 355: i4919. 2016/10/14.
MarinTJVan EerdDIrvinE, et al. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for subacute low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2017; 6: Cd002193. 2017/06/29.
29.
EisenbergDMBuringJEHrbekAL, et al. A model of integrative care for low-back pain. J Altern Complement Med2012; 18: 354–362. 2012/03/28.
30.
HagenEMØdelienKHLieSA, et al. Adding a physical exercise programme to brief intervention for low back pain patients did not increase return to work. Scand J Public Health2010; 38: 731–738. 2010/09/08.
31.
JensenCJensenOKNielsenCV. Sustainability of return to work in sick-listed employees with low-back pain. Two-year follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing multidisciplinary and brief intervention. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2012; 13: 156. 2012/08/28.
32.
MasRRLópez-JiménezTPujol-RiberaE, et al. Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL intervention for non-specific SUBACUTE low back pain in a working population: a cluster randomized clinical trial. BMC Health Serv Res2019; 19: 962. 2019/12/14.
33.
MonticoneMAmbrosiniEPortogheseI, et al. Multidisciplinary program based on early management of psychological factors reduces disability of patients with subacute low back pain. Results of a randomised controlled study with one year follow-up. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med2021; 57(6): 959–967. DOI: 10.23736/s1973-9087.21.06696-x
34.
PedersenPNielsenCVJensenOK, et al. Employment status five years after a randomised controlled trial comparing multidisciplinary and brief intervention in employees on sick leave due to low back pain. Scand J Public Health2018; 46: 383–388. 2017/08/03.
35.
RogersonMDGatchelRJBiernerSM. A cost utility analysis of interdisciplinary early intervention versus treatment as usual for high-risk acute low back pain patients. Pain Pract2010; 10: 382–395. 2010/04/14.
36.
SchultzIZCrookJMBerkowitzJ, et al. Early intervention with compensated lower back-injured workers at risk for work disability: fixed versus flexible approach. Psychol Inj Law2013; 6: 258–276.
37.
StapelfeldtCMChristiansenDHJensenOK, et al. Subgroup analyses on return to work in sick-listed employees with low back pain in a randomised trial comparing brief and multidisciplinary intervention. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2011; 12: 112. 2011/05/27.
38.
SteenstraIAAnemaJRvan TulderMW, et al. Economic evaluation of a multi-stage return to work program for workers on sick-leave due to low back pain. J Occup Rehabil2006; 16: 557–578. 2006/11/07.
39.
SteenstraIAKnolDLBongersPM, et al. What works best for whom? An exploratory, subgroup analysis in a randomized, controlled trial on the effectiveness of a workplace intervention in low back pain patients on return to work. Spine2009; 34: 1243–1249. 2009/05/05.
40.
HagenEMEriksenHRUrsinH. Does early intervention with a light mobilization program reduce long-term sick leave for low back pain?Spine2000; 25: 1973–1976. 2000/07/26.
41.
JensenCJensenOKChristiansenDH, et al. One-year follow-up in employees sick-listed because of low back pain: randomized clinical trial comparing multidisciplinary and brief intervention. Spine2011; 36: 1180–1189. 2011/01/11.
42.
SchultzIZCrookJBerkowitzJ, et al. Predicting return to work after low back injury using the psychosocial risk for occupational disability instrument: a validation study. J Occup Rehabil2005; 15: 365–376. 2005/08/27.
43.
IlmarinenJPastTuomi K., Present and future of work ability. People Work Res Rep2004; 65: 1–25.
44.
HruschakVCochranG. Psychosocial predictors in the transition from acute to chronic pain: a systematic review. Psychol Health Med2018; 23: 1151–1167. 2018/03/02.
45.
IkemotoTMikiKMatsubaraT, et al. Psychological treatment strategy for chronic low back pain. Spine Surg Relat Res2019; 3: 199–206. 2019/08/24.
46.
LintonSJ. A review of psychological risk factors in back and neck pain. Spine2000; 25: 1148–1156. 2000/05/02.
47.
NicholasMKLintonSJWatsonPJ, et al. Early identification and management of psychological risk factors (“yellow flags”) in patients with low back pain: a reappraisal. Phys Ther2011; 91: 737–753. 2011/04/01.
48.
MarianoTYUrmanRDHutchisonCA, et al. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for subacute low back pain: a systematic review. Curr Pain Headache Rep2018; 22: 15. 2018/02/25.
49.
SveinsdottirVEriksenHRRemeSE. Assessing the role of cognitive behavioral therapy in the management of chronic nonspecific back pain. J Pain Res2012; 5: 371–380. 2012/10/24.
50.
van TulderMBeckerABekkeringT, et al. Chapter 3. European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care. Eur Spine J2006; 15: S169–S191. 2006/03/22.
51.
IndahlAVelundLReikeraasO. Good prognosis for low back pain when left untampered. A randomized clinical trial. Spine1995; 20: 473–477. 1995/02/15.
52.
van OostromSHDriessenMTde VetHCW, et al. Workplace interventions for preventing work disability. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2009; 2. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006955.pub2
53.
RussoFPapaliaGFVadalàG, et al. The effects of workplace interventions on low back pain in workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 18: 12614.
54.
Vargas-PradaSDemouELallooD, et al. Effectiveness of very early workplace interventions to reduce sickness absence: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Scand J Work Environ Health2016; 42: 261–272. 2016/06/09.
55.
Viikari-JunturaEKaustoJShiriR, et al. Return to work after early part-time sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders: a randomized controlled trial. Scand J Work Environ Health2012; 38: 134–143. 2011/10/29.
56.
WaddellGBurtonAK. Is work good for your health and well-being?London, UK: The Stationery Office, 2006, 246.
57.
BuchnerMNeubauerEZahlten-HinguranageA, et al. Age as a predicting factor in the therapy outcome of multidisciplinary treatment of patients with chronic low back pain—a prospective longitudinal clinical study in 405 patients. Clin Rheumatol2007; 26: 385–392. 2006/07/26.
58.
HayashiKAraiY-CPIkemotoT, et al. Predictive factors for the outcome of multidisciplinary treatments in chronic low back pain at the first multidisciplinary pain center of Japan. J Phys Ther Sci2015; 27: 2901–2905. 2015/09/30.
59.
van HooffMLSpruitMO’DowdJK, et al. Predictive factors for successful clinical outcome 1 year after an intensive combined physical and psychological programme for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J2014; 23: 102–112. 2013/06/19.
60.
MaroisEDurandMJ. Does participation in interdisciplinary work rehabilitation programme influence return to work obstacles and predictive factors?Disabil Rehabil2009; 31: 994–1007. 2008/11/28.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
