Psychosocial factors predictive of occupational low back disability: towards development of a return-to-work model
PainSci summary of Schultz 2004?This page is one of thousands in the PainScience.com bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided at the bottom of the page, as often as possible.
This study identified factors affecting return-to-work time after an episode of low-back pain. From the abstract: “The key psychosocial predictors identified were expectations of recovery and perception of health change.”
original abstract†Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.
This paper focuses on the identification and testing of potential psychosocial factors contributing to an integrated multivariate predictive model of occupational low back disability. Psychosocial predictors originate from five traditions of psychosocial research: psychopathological, cognitive, diathesis-stress, human adaptation and organizational psychology. The psychosocial variables chosen for this study reflect a full range of research findings. They were investigated using 253 subacute and chronic pain injured workers. Three outcome measures were utilized: return-to-work status, duration of disability and disability costs. The key psychosocial predictors identified were expectations of recovery and perception of health change. Also implicated, but to a lesser degree, were occupational stability, skill discretion at work, co-worker support, and the response of the workers' compensation system and employer to the disability. All psychosocial models were better at predicting who will return than who will not return to work.
related content
These four articles on PainScience.com cite Schultz 2004 as a source:
- PS Save Yourself from Low Back Pain! — Low back pain myths debunked and all your treatment options reviewed
- PS Save Yourself from Neck Pain! — A complete guide to chronic neck pain and the disturbing sensation of a “crick”
- PS Pain is Weird — Pain science reveals a volatile, misleading sensation that is often more than just a symptom, and sometimes worse than whatever started it
- PS Does Acupuncture Work for Pain? — A review of modern acupuncture evidence and myths, focused on treatment of back pain & other common chronic pains
This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights:
- A Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis of the power pose effect with informed and default priors: the case of felt power. Gronau 2017 Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology.
- Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Paige 2017 JAMA.
- Incidence of Spontaneous Resorption of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis. Zhong 2017 Pain Physician.
- How much is too much? (Part 1) International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury. Soligard 2016 Br J Sports Med.
- Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for migraine: a three-armed, single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial. Chaibi 2016 Eur J Neurol.