Employment status five years after a randomised controlled trial comparing multidisciplinary and brief intervention in employees on sick leave due to low back pain

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate differences in employment status, during a five-year follow-up period in patients on sick leave due to low back pain who had participated in a trial comparing a brief and a multidisciplinary intervention. Methods: From 2004 to 2008, 535 patients were referred to the Spine Centre at the Regional Hospital in Silkeborg if they had been on sick leave for 3–16 weeks due to low back pain. All patients underwent a clinical examination by a rehabilitation physician and a physiotherapist, and were randomised to either the brief intervention or the multidisciplinary intervention. The outcome was employment status from randomisation to five years of follow-up and was measured by the mean number of weeks in four different groups of employment status (sequence analysis) and a fraction of the number of weeks working (work participation score) that were accumulated over the years. Results: A total of 231 patients were randomised to the brief intervention and 233 patients to the multidisciplinary intervention. No statistically significant differences in the mean weeks spent within the different employment statuses were found between the two intervention groups. After five years of follow-up, participants in the multidisciplinary intervention had a 19% higher risk of not having a work participation score above 75% compared to participants in the brief intervention. Conclusions: After five years of follow-up no differences in employment status were found between participants in the brief and the multidisciplinary intervention.

Keywords

Return to work sick leave relapse low back pain multidisciplinary intervention brief intervention sequence analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Jensen

Christiansen

Nielsen

. One-year follow-up in employees sick-listed because of low back pain: randomized clinical trial comparing multidisciplinary and brief intervention. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36(15):1180–9.

Jensen

Nielsen

. 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 Disord 2012;13:156.

Young

Roessler

Wasiak

. A developmental conceptualization of return to work. J Occup Rehabil 2005;15(4);557–68.

Amick

3rd Lerner

Rogers

. A review of health-related work outcome measures and their uses, and recommended measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25(24);3152–60.

Stapelfeldt

Christiansen

Jensen

. 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 Disord 2011;12:112.

Hjollund

Larsen

Andersen

. Register-based follow-up of social benefits and other transfer payments: Accuracy and degree of completeness in a Danish interdepartmental administrative database compared with a population-based survey. Scand J Public Health 2007;35(5):497–502.

Pedersen

Lund

Lindholdt

. Labour market trajectories following sickness absence due to self-reported all cause morbidity – A longitudinal study. BMC Public Health 2016;16:337.

Biering

Hjollund

Lund

. Methods in measuring return to work: A comparison of measures of return to work following treatment of coronary heart disease. J Occup Rehabil 2013;23(3):400–05.

Brzinsky-Fay

Kohler

Luniak

. Sequence analysis with Stata. Stata Journal 2006;6(4):435.

10.

Brzinsky-Fay

. The measurement of school-to-work transitions as processes: About events and sequences. European Societies 2014;16(2):213–32.

11.

Brzinsky-Fay

. Graphical Representation of transitions and sequences. In: Blanchard

Bühlmann

Gauthier

(eds) Advances in sequence analysis: theory, method, applications. Springer: New York, 2014, pp. 265–84.

12.

Kamper

Apeldoorn

Chiarotto

. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2015;350.

13.

Hoefsmit

Houkes

Nijhuis

. Intervention characteristics that facilitate return to work after sickness absence: a systematic literature review. J Occup Rehabil 2012;22(4):462–77.

14.

Schandelmaier

Ebrahim

Burkhardt

. Return to work coordination programmes for work disability: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. PLoS One 2012;7(11).

15.

Gallon

. Perception of disability in chronic back pain patients: A long-term follow-up. Pain 1989;37(1):67–75.

16.

Bendix

Haestrup

. A prospective, randomized 5-year follow-up study of functional restoration in chronic low back pain patients. Eur Spine J 1998;7(2):111–9.

17.

Steenstra

Knol

Bongers

. 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. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34(12):1243–9.

18.

Haldorsen

EMH

Grasdal

Skouen

. Is there a right treatment for a particular patient group? Comparison of ordinary treatment, light multidisciplinary treatment, and extensive multidisciplinary treatment for long-term sick-listed employees with musculoskeletal pain. Pain 2002;95(1–2):49–63.

19.

Stapelfeldt

Jensen

Andersen

. Validation of sick leave measures: Self-reported sick leave and sickness benefit data from a Danish national register compared to multiple workplace-registered sick leave spells in a Danish municipality. BMC Public Health 2012;12:661.