C. Infanterivard et M. Lortie, PROGNOSTIC FACTORS FOR RETURN TO WORK AFTER A FIRST COMPENSATED EPISODE OF BACK PAIN, Occupational and environmental medicine, 53(7), 1996, pp. 488-494
Objectives-To determine which factors measured at baseline and during
the course of treatment influence time to return to work after a first
compensated episode of back pain. Methods-The design is a treatment i
nception cohort including 305 compensated workers out of 402 eligible
ones presenting at two rehabilitation centres for conventional treatme
nt. Crude and adjusted rate ratios (RRs) along with 95% confidence int
ervals (95% CIs) were estimated with the Cox's proportional hazards re
gression. Results-50% of workers had not returned to work after 112 da
ys of follow up, and 11.3% still had not after 270 days. At the end of
the study period (maximum follow up time was 1228 days), 230 workers
(75.4%) had returned to work, 6.5% had not, and a similar percentage h
ad retired, gone into vocational training, or returned to school. In t
he final model stratified for radiating pain during treatment, which w
as an important prognostic variable, workers between 21 to 30 years of
age had a greater chance of returning to work (RR (95% CI) 1.43 (1.03
to 1.98)) than those greater than or equal to 30. The other factors a
ssociated with a greater chance of returning to work were: a diagnosis
of sprain or pain v a diagnosis of intervertebral disc disorder (2.20
(1.233.91)), < 30 days of waiting between the accident and the beginn
ing of treatment (1.30 (0.96 to 1.77)), a good flexion at baseline (1.
52 (1.01 to 2.23)), absence of neurological symptoms during treatment
(1.40 (0.98-2.00)), > 24 months of employment in the industry (1.49 (1
.10 to 2.03)), working for a public industry v a private one (1.63 (1.
21 to 2.19)), and the ability to take unscheduled breaks (1.45 (1.06 t
o 1.97)). Conclusions-Even with a first-episode of back pain, time to
return to work is long and the proportion not returning is high. Retur
n to work as expected is influenced by disease and host characteristic
s but: also by social and work factors. Reinstatement programmes shoul
d account for all these factors.