title: Subgroup analyses on return to work in sick-listed employees with low back pain in a randomised trial comparing brief and multidisciplinary intervention.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Multidisciplinary intervention is recommended for rehabilitation of employees sick-listed for 4-12 weeks due to low back pain (LBP). However, comparison of a brief and a multidisciplinary intervention in a randomised comparative trial of sick-listed employees showed similar return to work (RTW) rates in the two groups. The aim of the present study was to identify subgroups, primarily defined by work-related baseline factors that would benefit more from the multidisciplinary intervention than from the brief intervention.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 351 employees sick-listed for 3-16 weeks due to LBP were recruited from their general practitioners. They received a brief or a multidisciplinary intervention. Both interventions comprised clinical examination and advice by a rehabilitation doctor and a physiotherapist. The multidisciplinary intervention also comprised assignment of a case manager, who made a rehabilitation plan in collaboration with the patient and a multidisciplinary team. Using data from a national database, we defined RTW as no sickness compensation benefit disbursement for four consecutive weeks within the first year after the intervention. At the first interview in the clinic, it was ensured that sick leave was primarily due to low back problems.Questionnaires were used to obtain data on health, disability, demographic and workplace-related factors. Cox hazard regression analyses were used with RTW as outcome measure and hazard rate ratios (HRR = HRmultidisciplinary/HRbrief) were adjusted for demographic and health-related variables. An interaction term consisting of a baseline variable*intervention group was added to the multivariable regression model to analyse whether the effects of the interventions were moderated by the baseline factor. Subsequently, a new study was performed that included 120 patients who followed the same protocol. This group was analyzed in the same way to verify the findings from the original study group.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The multidisciplinary intervention group ensured a quicker RTW than the brief intervention group in a subgroup with low job satisfaction, notably when claimants were excluded. The opposite effect was seen in the subgroup with high job satisfaction. When claimants were excluded, the effect was also in favour of the multidisciplinary intervention in subgroups characterised by no influence on work planning and groups at risk of losing their job. Inversely, the effect was in favour of the brief intervention in the subgroups who were able to influence the planning of their work and who had no risk of losing their job due to current sick leave. Interaction analysis of the data in the new study displayed similar or even more pronounced differences between subgroups in relation to intervention type.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Multidisciplinary intervention seemed more effective than brief intervention in subgroups of patients with low job satisfaction, no influence on work planning and feeling at risk of losing their jobs due to their sick leave as compared with subgroups not fulfilling these criteria.
authors: Department of Clinical Social Medicine, Centre of Public Health, Central Denmark Region, School of Public Health, University of Aarhus, Denmark.
authors: Christina M
authors: CM
authors: Stapelfeldt
authors: David H
authors: DH
authors: Christiansen
authors: Ole K
authors: OK
authors: Jensen
authors: Claus V
authors: CV
authors: Nielsen
authors: Karin D
authors: KD
authors: Petersen
authors: Chris
authors: C
authors: Jensen
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Feb 1;32(3):291-8; discussion 299-300
references: 17268258
references: J Occup Rehabil. 2002 Dec;12(4):277-95
references: 12389479
references: Scand J Public Health. 2007;35(5):497-502
references: 17852980
references: Disabil Rehabil. 2007 Sep 15;29(17):1377-85
references: 17729083
references: Lancet. 2000 Mar 25;355(9209):1064-9
references: 10744093
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Jun 15;28(12):1215-8
references: 12811262
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 May 20;34(12):1243-9
references: 19412140
references: J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Aug;62(8):781-796.e1
references: 19136234
references: Ugeskr Laeger. 2009 May 4;171(19):1604-7
references: 19425255
references: Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005 Aug;19(4):655-70
references: 15949782
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Dec 15;30(24):2717-23
references: 16371893
references: Pain. 1994 Jun;57(3):317-326
references: 7936710
references: Occup Environ Med. 2005 Dec;62(12):851-60
references: 16299094
references: J Occup Rehabil. 2009 Mar;19(1):81-93
references: 19169654
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Dec 15;22(24):2911-8
references: 9431627
references: J Rehabil Med. 2009 Feb;41(3):115-21
references: 19229442
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Feb 15;20(4):473-7
references: 7747232
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Feb 1;26(3):262-9
references: 11224862
references: Disabil Rehabil. 2001 Dec 15;23(18):815-28
references: 11763278
references: Pain. 2002 Jan;95(1-2):49-63
references: 11790467
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 May 1;31(10):1075-82
references: 16648740
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Jan;82(1):4-15
references: 10653079
references: Am J Ind Med. 2000 Dec;38(6):707-22
references: 11071692
references: Ann Readapt Med Phys. 2004 May;47(4):179-89
references: 15130717
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Oct 15;28(20):2309-15; discussion 2316
references: 14560075
references: Soc Sci Med. 2004 May;58(10):1857-68
references: 15020004