LEARNING EFFECTS OF A BACK EDUCATION-PROGRAM

Citation
Rj. Schenk et al., LEARNING EFFECTS OF A BACK EDUCATION-PROGRAM, Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976), 21(19), 1996, pp. 2183-2188
Citations number
17
Categorie Soggetti
Orthopedics,"Clinical Neurology
ISSN journal
03622436
Volume
21
Issue
19
Year of publication
1996
Pages
2183 - 2188
Database
ISI
SICI code
0362-2436(1996)21:19<2183:LEOABE>2.0.ZU;2-J
Abstract
Study design: This study involved a post-test only, control group desi gn. Objectives. To analyze the learning effects of back education prog rams (video and classroom learning). Summary of Background Data. Previ ous research has examined lost work time and workers' compensation cos ts but has not addressed the learning effects of back schools. This st udy used the American Back School as the education intervention. The A merican Back School teaches students to maintain the lumbar lordosis w hile lifting. Methods. The subjects (n = 205) were assigned to three g roups through modified randomization. Three employees who previously s ustained low back injury were placed in the back school group. The bac k school group, Group I, (n = 74) attended a back school program that included cognitive learning strategies and practice in correct lifting . A video group, Group II, (n = 64) viewed a similar program that cons isted of spinal anatomy and biomechanics and instruction in correct li fting technique. A control group, Group III, (n = 67) received no back education. One week after the education intervention, 145 of the subj ects from the three groups had the lumbar lordosis measured with a fle xible ruler while assuming a lifting position. The ruler was placed ov er the lumbar spinous processes, and the lordotic angle was calculated . A 12-item multiple choice test and a 10-item Likert scale were admin istered to 199 of the subjects in the three groups to determine the co gnitive learning effect and the perceived relevance of the program, re spectively. Results. Multivariate analysis of variance was used and de monstrated significant differences between the back school group and t he control group on the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective measures at the 0.001 level. No significant differences were found between the video and control groups on the measures with additional univariate t esting. Conclusions. The results indicate that the back school is an e ffective tool for influencing lifting posture and conveying informatio n regarding spinal mechanics and lifting technique. In addition, the b ack school videos may not be an effective means of preventing low back injury.