Article

The rising prevalence of chronic low back pain.

The Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 725 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7590, USA.
Archives of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 13.25). 03/2009; 169(3):251-8. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.543
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT National or state-level estimates on trends in the prevalence of chronic low back pain (LBP) are lacking. The objective of this study was to determine whether the prevalence of chronic LBP and the demographic, health-related, and health care-seeking characteristics of individuals with the condition have changed over the last 14 years.
A cross-sectional, telephone survey of a representative sample of North Carolina households was conducted in 1992 and repeated in 2006. A total of 4437 households were contacted in 1992 and 5357 households in 2006 to identify noninstitutionalized adults 21 years or older with chronic (>3 months), impairing LBP or neck pain that limits daily activities. These individuals were interviewed in more detail about their health and health care seeking.
The prevalence of chronic, impairing LBP rose significantly over the 14-year interval, from 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4%-4.4%) in 1992 to 10.2% (95% CI, 9.3%-11.0%) in 2006. Increases were seen for all adult age strata, in men and women, and in white and black races. Symptom severity and general health were similar for both years. The proportion of individuals who sought care from a health care provider in the past year increased from 73.1% (95% CI, 65.2%-79.8%) to 84.0% (95% CI, 80.8%-86.8%), while the mean number of visits to all health care providers were similar (19.5 [1992] vs 19.4 [2006]).
The prevalence of chronic, impairing LBP has risen significantly in North Carolina, with continuing high levels of disability and health care use. A substantial portion of the rise in LBP care costs over the past 2 decades may be related to this rising prevalence.

2 Followers
 · 
259 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study Design: Comparative assessment of randomized controlled trials of caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in chronic lumbar discogenic pain. Objective: To assess the comparative efficacy of caudal and lumbar interlaminar approaches of epidural injections in managing axial or discogenic low back pain. Summary of Background Data: Epidural injections are commonly performed utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach to treat chronic lumbar axial or discogenic pain, which is pain exclusive of that associated with a herniated intervertebral disc, or that is due to degeneration of the zygapophyseal joints, or due to dysfunction of the sacroiliac joints, respectively. The literature on the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic axial lumbar pain of presumed discogenic origin is limited. Methods: The present analysis is based on 2 randomized controlled trials of chronic axial low back pain not caused by disc herniation, radiculitis, or facet joint pain, utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach, with a total of 240 patients studied, and a 24-month follow-up. Patients were assigned to receive either local anesthetic only or local anesthetic with a steroid in each 60 patient group. Results: The primary outcome measure was significant improvement, defined as pain relief and functional status improvement of at least 50% from baseline, which was reported at 24-month follow-ups in 72% who received local anesthetic only with a lumbar interlaminar approach and 54% who received local anesthetic only with a caudal approach. In patients receiving local anesthetic with a steroid, the response rate was 67% for those who had a lumbar interlaminar approach and 68% for those who had a caudal approach at 12 months. The response was significantly better in the lumbar interlaminar group who received local anesthetic only, 77% versus 56% at 12 months and 72% versus 54% at 24 months. Conclusion: This assessment shows that in patients with axial or discogenic pain in the lumbar spine after excluding facet joint and SI Joint pain, epidural injections of local anesthetic by the caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach may be effective in managing chronic low back pain with a potential superiority for a lumbar interlaminar approach over a caudal approach.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of upper-body-quadrant pain among ultrasonographers and to evaluate the association between individual ergonomics, musculoskeletal disorders, and occurrence of neck pain. A hundred and ten (N = 110) Belgian and Dutch male and female hospital ultrasonographers were consecutively enrolled in the study. Data on work-related ergonomic and musculoskeletal disorders were collected with an electronic inquiry, including questions regarding ergonomics (position of the screen, high-low table, and ergonomic chair), symptoms (neck pain, upper-limb pain), and work-related factors (consecutive working hours a day, average working hours a week). Subjects with the screen on their left had significantly more neck pain (odds ratio [OR] = 3.6, p = .0286). Depending on the workspace, high-low tables increased the chance of developing neck pain (OR = 12.9, p = .0246). A screen at eye level caused less neck pain (OR = .22, p = .0610). Employees with a fixed working space were less susceptible to arm pain (OR = 0.13, p = .0058). The prevalence of arm pain was significantly higher for the vascular department compared to radiology, urology, and gynecology departments (OR = 9.2, p = .0278). Regarding prevention of upper-limb pain in ultrasonograph, more attention should be paid to the work environment and more specialty to the ultrasound workstation layout. Primary ergonomic prevention could provide a painless work situation for the ultrasonographer. Further research on the ergonomic conditions of ultrasonography is necessary to develop ergonomic solutions in the work environment that will help to alleviate neck and arm pain. © 2014, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
    Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 03/2015; 57(2):238-245. DOI:10.1177/0018720814547872 · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While health literacy has been widely considered key to patient empowerment, an alternative approach separates both concepts and distinguishes between dif-ferent types of patients according to their levels of health literacy and empowerment. These types are deemed to vary in their health-related actions and outcomes. In this study, we exam-ine the relationship between health literacy and patient empowerment and compare socio-demographic characteristics, health-related activities, and health outcomes in four types of pa-tients suffering from chronic low back pain (cLBP). In a cross-sectional study, 273 cLBP patients from four Swiss can-tons (Vaud, Geneva, Fribourg, Ticino) and Lombardy (Italy) were invited by their healthcare providers to complete a self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire which assessed pa-tients' health literacy, empowerment, involvement in the medical encounter, medication non-adherence, and perceived pain and functionality as a measure of health outcomes. Health literacy and patient empowerment were not significantly correlated with each other, r(271) = .09, p > .05, allowing to differentiate be-tween four types of patients based on their levels of health literacy and patient empowerment. Subsequent chi-square tests and analyses of variances revealed significant differences among patients that could, however, only be attributed to health literacy, as in the case of age and ed-ucational attainment, or patient empowerment, as in the case of patients' involvement in the medical encounter. No significant differences were evident for gender, medication non-adherence, and health outcomes. The study provides empirical evidence for the need to consider health literacy and patient empowerment as independent concepts in the context of cLBP but calls for further studies to be able to conclude on how the two concepts interact and determine health-related activities and outcomes.
    PLoS ONE 02/2015; 10(2):e0118032. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0118032 · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
718 Downloads
Available from
May 22, 2014