Table 3

Studies dealing with consequences of low back pain

First author, country, year (reference no.)	Sample size; participation rate at baseline, follow up	Study participants	Work related psychosocial variables	Instrument used§	Definition of LBP	Adjustments	Odds ratio
†Study of higher quality according to quality assessment.
§In bold if validated instrument was used.
*Not reported.
**Non-significant, outcome measure or 95% CI not reported.
***Significant, outcome measure not reported.
Bigos, USA, 1991 (28)	1223; 75%, 54%	Volunteer hourly employees of Boeing aircraft factory	Job satisfaction	MMPI, Work APGAR	LBP claims past four years	Sex, previous LBP, treatment, education, physical workload	Without previous LBP 1.53 (1.09–2.29)
Bigos, USA, 1991 (28)	1223; 75%, 54%	Volunteer hourly employees of Boeing aircraft factory			LBP claims past four years	Sex, previous LBP, treatment, education, physical workload	With previous LBP 1.85 (1.30–2.62)
Bigos, USA, 1992 (29)	3020; 75%, 53%	Volunteer hourly employees of Boeing aircraft factory	Job satisfaction	MMPI, Work APGAR	LBP claims past four years	Age, sex, physical workload, covariates with highest predictive power	S***
Härkäpää, Finland, 1992 (30)	473; 61%, NR*	Chronic or recurrent LBP patients recruited through mailed questionnaires	Job satisfaction	Own instrument	Disability pension due to LBP	Age, sex	NS**
Lancourt, USA, 1992 (31)	134; 81%, 67%	Consecutive LBP patients receiving workers compensation	Job satisfaction	Not reported	Return to work after sick leave for LBP	Predictive indices based on discriminant analysis	NS**
Lehann, USA, 1993 (32)	83; 84%/66%	Patients presenting with LBP and sick leave at 2–6 weeks	Job mental requirement	Own, questionnaire by Price et al	Return to work	Not reported	NS**
			Job stress				NS**
			Job appreciation				NS**
			Job responsibility				NS**
			Job affect				NS**
			Job supervisor affect				NS**
			External support				NS**
			Others listening				NS**
			Co-worker helpfulness				NS**
Coste, France, 1994 (33)	103; NR, 89% of baseline	Consecutive patients >18 y presenting to GP office	Job satisfaction	Not reported	Return to work	Age, sex, physical workload, pain at entry, disability at entry, delay of care seeking, compensation status	0.57 (0.21–1.13) (Hazard ratio for return to work)
Infante-Rivard, Canada, 1996 (34)	270; 76%, 67%	Workers presenting with first time compensated LBP	Feelings towards work	Faces scale	Return to work after sick leave for LBP	Sex, age physical workload, diagnosis, time from debut of pain to beginning of treatment, spinal flexion, neurological symptoms, duration of employment, private v public employer, possibilities for breaks	1.00**
			Feelings towards work conditions				1.00**
Hemingway, UK, 1997 (35)	10308; 73%, 53%	All non-industrial civil servants aged 35–55 and working in the London office of 20 depts	Control over work	Own instrument or Questionnaire by Karasek	Absence from work due to LBP	Age, sex, physical workload, education, car access, tenure, BMI, exercise, smoking	1.44 (1.11–1.85)
			Conflicting demands				0.73 (0.55–0–95)
			Pace				1.79 (1.39–2.31)
			Social support at work				1.12 (0.84–1.41)
			Job satisfaction				1.17 (0.92–1.48)
Nordin, USA, 1997 (36)	557; 40%, 29%	All employees with lost work episode due to LBP in two large public New York companies	Job satisfaction	Questionnaires by Israel, Quinn and Shephard	Delayed return to work	Not reported	1.09 (0.78–1.52)
			Negative feelings about work	Questionnaires by Israel, Quinn and Shephard	Delayed return to work		0.96 (0.65–1.42)
Papageorgiou, UK, 1997 (14)	1412; 59%, 18%	General population, employed and free from back pain in past month	Job satisfaction	Own instrument	Consulting doctor for any pain below ribs and above gluteal fold past 12 months	Age	0.8 (0.2–2.7)
			Relationships at work				1.3 (0.9–1.9)
Wickström, Finland, 1998 (37)	306 NR*	White and blue collar employees from two companies	Influence on work conditions	Own instrument	Sick leave due to LBP	Age, physical workload	1.05 (0.59–1.88)
			Recognition and respect				1.99 (1.14–3.46)
			Job security				1.35 (0.75–2.45)
			Stress past five years				1.10 (0.62–1.96)
Williams, USA, 1998 (38)	87; 94%, 60%	Consecutive first time male LBP patients at medical center	Job satisfaction	Job description index, Work APGAR	Waddell physical impairment index—severity of pain	Physical limitation, ethnicity	NR*
†van Poppel, Holland, 1998 (15)	238; 82%, 63%	All manual handling workers from from Shiphol Airport Cargo Department	Job satisfaction	Questionnaire by Dijkstra	Sick leave due to LBP past three months	Age, history of LBP, time riding forklift truck	1.2 (1.05–1.7)
†van der Weide, Holland, 1999 (39)	142; 85%, 76%	Health service workers sick listed for LBP	Problematic relations with colleagues	Not reported	Return to work	Unknown	0.82 (0.73–1.00)
			Not enjoying work				NS**
			Work tempo				NS**
Tousignant, Canada, 2000 (40)	601; 23–69%; NR	Employees from three companies in Quebec	Work monotony	Not reported	New occurrence of compensation related to LBP	Unknown	1.2 (0.4–3.4)
Tousignant, Canada, 2000 (40)		Employees from three companies in Quebec	Job satisfaction		New occurrence of compensation related to LBP		1.1 (0.9–1.3)
†van der Giezen, Holland, 2000 (41)	298; 58%, 53%	Private sector employees sick-listed for 90 consecutive days	Decision latitude	Questionnaires by Karasek, Theorell, Johansson, Symonds	Return to work after sick leave for LBP	Sex, age, physical workload, significant predictors for return to work	NS**
			Psychological demands				NS**
			Social support				NS**
			Job satisfaction				1.26 (1.11–1.44)
Fransen, New Zealand, 2002 (42)	854; 59%, 59%	New cases of work related LBP reported at insurance corporation	Co-worker support	Work APGAR	LBP claim and compensation	Age, sex, physical workload, individual and workplace variables significant in univariate analysis	NS**
Fransen, New Zealand, 2002 (42)			Job satisfaction				NS**
†Elfering, Switzerland, 2002 (23)	186; 76%, 61%	Young nurses participating in other longitudinal study	Time control	Own, questionnaires by Caplan et al and Oegerli et al	Care seeking for LBP	Age, sex, physical workload, problems at baseline, BMI, leisure time sport, smoking, general health	NS**
			Social support				5.75 (1.27–25.9)
			Social stressors				NS**
			Job satisfaction				NS**
†Hoogendoorn, Holland, 2002 (43)	988; 87%, 43%	Workers from 34 Dutch companies	Qualitative job demands	Questionnaire by Karasek, Dutch questionnaire on job satisfaction	Absence more than three days from work due to LBP	Age, sex, physical workload, physical function at leisure	0.68 (0.30–1.40)
			Conflicting demands				1.20 (0.61–2.19)
			Decision authority				0.69 (0.34–1.40)
			Skill discretion				1.10 (0.58–2.10)
			Supervisor support				1.43 (0.77–2.74)
			Co-worker support				1.46 (0.82–2.61)
			Job satisfaction				1.95 (1.08–3.39)
Hagen, Norway, 2002 (44)	2527; 1 73%, 73%	All employed men and women aged 25–59 in Norwegian county	Excessive job demands	Own questionnaire	Retirement due to LBP, register based	Age, sex, physical workload, other psychosocial variables	0.60 (0.40–1.00)
			Authority to plan own work				1.40 (1.00–2.00)
			Job satisfaction				1.50 (1.00–2.30)
Schultz, Canada, 2002 (45)	579; 63%/27%	Workers with subacute and chronic low back injuries	Job content	Questionnaire by Karasek	Return to work	Age, sex, physical workload, duration of pain, union membership, physical functioning, total time in current job, Waddell non-organic signs	NS**
†Tubach, France, 2002 (46)	2.236; 78%, 56%	Workers from high physical stress groups from electrical corporation	Decision latitude	Questionnaire by Karasek, own questionnaire	<8 days of sick leave due to LBP	Age, sex, physical workload, personal factors, self perceived health	NR*
			Psychological demands				1.20 (0.90–1.60)
			Social support at work				1.40 (0.90–2.30)
			Job satisfaction		>8 days of sick leave		NR*
					due to LBP		NR*
							1.10 (0.60–2.00)
							3.40 (1.60–7.30)
							NR*