You are here

Article Text

Article menu
XML
Review
Absence from work and return to work in people with back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Gwenllian Wynne-Jones1,
  2. Jemma Cowen1,
  3. Joanne L Jordan1,
  4. Olalekan Uthman1,
  5. Chris J Main1,
  6. Nick Glozier2,
  7. Danielle van der Windt1
  1. 1Department of Primary Care Sciences, Arthritis Research UK National Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Keele, UK
  2. 2Department of Psychiatry, Central Clinical School, Brain & Mind Research Institute, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Gwenllian Wynne-Jones, Department of Primary Care Sciences, Arthritis Research UK National Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Keele ST5 5BG, UK; g.wynne-jones{at}keele.ac.uk

Abstract

Background A considerable proportion of work absence is attributed to back pain, however prospective studies in working populations with back pain are variable in setting and design, and a quantitative summary of current evidence is lacking.

Objective To investigate the extent to which differences in setting, country, sampling procedures and methods for data collection are responsible for variation in estimates of work absence and return to work.

Methods Systematic searches of seven bibliographic databases. Inclusion criteria were: adults in paid employment, with back pain, work absence or return to work during follow-up had been reported. Random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis was carried out to provide summary estimates of work absence and return to work rates.

Results 45 studies were identified for inclusion in the review; 34 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled estimate for the occurrence of work absence in workers with back pain was 15.5% (95% CI 9.8% to 23.6%, n=17 studies, I2 98.1%) in studies with follow-up periods of ≤6 months. The pooled estimate for the proportion of people with back pain returning to work was 68.2% (95% CI 54.8% to 79.1%, n=13, I2 99.2%), 85.6% (95% CI 78.2% to 90.7%, n=13, I2 98.7%) and 93.3% (95% CI 84.0% to 94.7%, n=10, I2 99%), at 1 month, 1–6 months and ≥6 months, respectively. Differences in setting, risk of participation bias and method of assessing work absence explained some of the heterogeneity.

Conclusions Pooled estimates suggest high return to work rates, with wide variation in estimates of return to work only partly explained by a priori defined study-level variables. The estimated 32% not back at work at 1 month are at a crucial point for intervention to prevent long term work absence.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2013-101571

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

      Files in this Data Supplement:

    Linked Articles