↓ Skip to main content

Chronic low back pain among French healthcare workers and prognostic factors of return to work (RTW): a non-randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Chronic low back pain among French healthcare workers and prognostic factors of return to work (RTW): a non-randomized controlled trial
Published in
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12995-015-0082-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. Cougot, A. Petit, C. Paget, C. Roedlich, G. Fleury-Bahi, M. Fouquet, P. Menu, C. Dubois, C. Geraut, Y. Roquelaure, D. Tripodi

Abstract

Many factors influence the return to work of workers with chronic low back pain (CLBP). They have been said to vary according to socio-professional group. This study first aimed to compare prognostic factors influencing the return to work of CLBP healthcare workers (HCWs) and other workers (non-HCWs) after rehabilitation coupled with an occupational intervention. The second objective was to improve the evolution of indicators such as clinical examination, psychosocial impact and pain impact. Between 2007 and 2012, a cohort of 217 CLBP workers (54.8 %-women; mean age = 41.3 ± 9.5 years, 118 non-HCWs; 99 HCWs mainly from the public sector) was included in an ambulatory rehabilitation program (standard physiotherapy or intensive network physiotherapy) coupled with an occupational intervention. Workers completed a questionnaire and had a clinical examination at baseline and after 24 months' follow up. Physical, social and occupational data was collected at the same time. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate prognostic factors for return to work and compare the two worker populations. There was no difference between groups for the rate of OP (occupational physician) intervention or type of physiotherapy. 77.3 % of workers returned to work after 2 years following inclusion. To be an HCW (OR 0.1; 95 % CI [0.03-0.34]), to have less than 112 sick- leave days (OR 1.00; 95 % CI [0.93-1.00]), a small fingertip-floor distance (OR 0.96; 95 % CI [0.93-0.99]), a low anxiety/depression score (OR 0.97; 95 % CI [0.95-1.00]), a low impact of CLBP on daily life (OR 0.96; 95 % CI [0.93-1.00]), and on quality of life (OR 0.98; 95 % CI [0.95-1.00]) at baseline were statistically associated with return to work after 2 years of follow up. Only the profession (workplace) was statistically associated with return to work after 2 years of follow up using multivariate analysis. To our knowledge, this is the first cohort study concerning predictive factors of RTW among CLBP workers after 2 years of follow up. Interventions in the work environment did not seem to predict job retention significantly. But only 50 % of the employees in both groups (HCW and non-HCW) had one intervention at their workplace after 2 years. This study underlined the fact that the type of physiotherapy with a well-trained physiotherapist used to take care of CLBP could not impact on the RTW forecast. To develop these initial results, it might be interesting to study the comparison between private and public sectors and to randomize the physiotherapeutic intervention.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 196 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 15%
Researcher 25 13%
Student > Master 25 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 57 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 13%
Psychology 12 6%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 66 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,332,207
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#208
of 402 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,907
of 286,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 402 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.