Occupational psychosocial exposures and chronic low-back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-13 DOI:10.5271/sjweh.4165
Alexander Jahn, Johan Hviid Andersen, Andreas Seidler, David Høyrup Christiansen, Annett Dalbøge
{"title":"Occupational psychosocial exposures and chronic low-back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Alexander Jahn, Johan Hviid Andersen, Andreas Seidler, David Høyrup Christiansen, Annett Dalbøge","doi":"10.5271/sjweh.4165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to explore the association between occupational psychosocial exposures and chronic low-back pain (LBP) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The research protocol was registered in PROSPERO. A systematic literature search was performed in six databases, identifying articles complying with predefined inclusion criteria. In our PECOS, we defined outcome as chronic LBP ≥3 months, exposures as occupational psychosocial exposures, and restricted study design to case-control and cohort studies. Two authors independently excluded articles, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and graded evidence levels. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 20 included articles encompassed six different occupational psychosocial exposures (job control, demand, strain, support, stress, and satisfaction), only 1 had low risk of bias. For all occupational psychosocial exposures, odds ratios ranged from 0.8 to 1.1. Sensitivity analyses based on risk of bias was conducted for two outcomes ie, job control and job demand, finding no differences between high and low-to-moderate risk of bias studies. Using GRADE, we found a very low level of evidence of the association for all occupational psychosocial exposures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this study, we found no association between occupational psychosocial exposures and chronic LBP. However, it is important to underline that the level of evidence was very low. High quality studies are highly warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":21528,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","volume":" ","pages":"329-340"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11214847/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4165","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to explore the association between occupational psychosocial exposures and chronic low-back pain (LBP) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: The research protocol was registered in PROSPERO. A systematic literature search was performed in six databases, identifying articles complying with predefined inclusion criteria. In our PECOS, we defined outcome as chronic LBP ≥3 months, exposures as occupational psychosocial exposures, and restricted study design to case-control and cohort studies. Two authors independently excluded articles, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and graded evidence levels. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models.

Results: The 20 included articles encompassed six different occupational psychosocial exposures (job control, demand, strain, support, stress, and satisfaction), only 1 had low risk of bias. For all occupational psychosocial exposures, odds ratios ranged from 0.8 to 1.1. Sensitivity analyses based on risk of bias was conducted for two outcomes ie, job control and job demand, finding no differences between high and low-to-moderate risk of bias studies. Using GRADE, we found a very low level of evidence of the association for all occupational psychosocial exposures.

Conclusion: In this study, we found no association between occupational psychosocial exposures and chronic LBP. However, it is important to underline that the level of evidence was very low. High quality studies are highly warranted.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
职业社会心理暴露与慢性腰背痛:系统回顾与荟萃分析。
研究目的本研究旨在通过系统回顾和荟萃分析,探讨职业社会心理暴露与慢性腰背痛(LBP)之间的关联:研究方案已在 PROSPERO 上注册。在六个数据库中进行了系统性文献检索,确定了符合预定纳入标准的文章。在 PECOS 中,我们将结果定义为≥3 个月的慢性枸杞痛,将暴露定义为职业社会心理暴露,并将研究设计限制为病例对照和队列研究。两位作者独立排除文章、提取数据、评估偏倚风险并对证据等级进行分级。采用随机效应模型进行了元分析:纳入的 20 篇文章包括六种不同的职业社会心理暴露(工作控制、需求、压力、支持、压力和满意度),其中只有一篇文章的偏倚风险较低。所有职业社会心理暴露的几率比在 0.8 至 1.1 之间。根据偏倚风险对工作控制和工作需求这两个结果进行了敏感性分析,结果发现高偏倚风险和低至中度偏倚风险的研究之间没有差异。根据 GRADE,我们发现所有职业社会心理暴露的相关性证据水平都很低:在这项研究中,我们没有发现职业社会心理暴露与慢性腰椎间盘突出症之间存在关联。结论:在这项研究中,我们没有发现职业社会心理暴露与慢性腰椎间盘突出症之间存在关联,但必须强调的是,证据水平非常低。我们需要进行高质量的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health
Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
9.50%
发文量
65
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The aim of the Journal is to promote research in the fields of occupational and environmental health and safety and to increase knowledge through the publication of original research articles, systematic reviews, and other information of high interest. Areas of interest include occupational and environmental epidemiology, occupational and environmental medicine, psychosocial factors at work, physical work load, physical activity work-related mental and musculoskeletal problems, aging, work ability and return to work, working hours and health, occupational hygiene and toxicology, work safety and injury epidemiology as well as occupational health services. In addition to observational studies, quasi-experimental and intervention studies are welcome as well as methodological papers, occupational cohort profiles, and studies associated with economic evaluation. The Journal also publishes short communications, case reports, commentaries, discussion papers, clinical questions, consensus reports, meeting reports, other reports, book reviews, news, and announcements (jobs, courses, events etc).
期刊最新文献
Differential attrition and engagement in randomized controlled trials of occupational mental health interventions in person and online: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Associations between bioaerosols, lung function work-shift changes and inflammatory markers: A study of recycling workers. Effect of a smartphone self-management digital support system for low-back pain (selfBACK) among workers with high physical work demands - secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Facilitators and barriers for working beyond statutory pension age: A prospective cohort study across 26 European countries. In or out of reach? Long-term trends in the reach of health assessments in the Swedish occupational setting.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1