The effect of graded activity on patients with subacute low back pain: a randomized prospective clinical study with an operant-conditioning behavioral approach. Does early intervention with a light mobilization program reduce long-term sick leave for low back pain: a 3-year follow-up study. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for subacute low back pain: graded activity or workplace intervention or both? A randomized controlled trial. A 3-year follow-up of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for back and neck pain. Secondary prevention of work-related disability in nonspecific low back pain: does problem-solving therapy help? A randomized clinical trial. Little effect of transfer technique instruction and physical fitness training in reducing low back pain among nurses: a cluster randomised intervention study. Intensive group training versus cognitive intervention in sub-acute low back pain: short-term results of a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Intensive physical and psychosocial training program for patients with chronic low back pain. A controlled clinical trial. Effects of an exercise program on sick leave due to back pain. Physical performance, pain, pain behavior and subjective disability in patients with subacute low back pain. Does early intervention with a light mobilization program reduce long-term sick leave for low back pain? Mini-intervention for subacute low back pain: two-year follow-up and modifiers of effectiveness. The effectiveness of high-intensity versus low-intensity back schools in an occupational setting: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. The effectiveness of a supervised physical training model tailored to the individual needs of patients with whiplash-associated disorders--a randomized controlled trial. Evaluation of an educational low back pain prevention program for hospital employees. Early occupational health management of patients with back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Active treatment programs for patients with chronic low back pain: a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study. Effect of exercise on sick leave due to low back pain. A randomized, comparative, long-term study. Intensive group training protocol versus guideline physiotherapy for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial. Mini-intervention for subacute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.
The aim of this study was to determine whether graded activity restored occupational function in industrial blue-collar workers who were sick-listed for 8 weeks because of subacute, nonspecific, mechanical low back pain (LBP). Patients with LBP, who had been examined by an orthopedic surgeon and a social worker, were randomly assigned to either an activity group (n = 51) or a control group (n = 52). Patients with defined orthopedic, medical, or psychiatric diagnoses were excluded before randomization. The graded activity program consisted of four parts: (1) measurements of functional capacity; (2) a work-place visit; (3) back school education; and (4) an individual, submaximal, gradually increased exercise program, with an operant-conditioning behavioral approach, based on the results of the tests and the demands of the patient's work. Records of the amount of sick leave taken over a 3-year period (ie, the 1-year periods before, during, and after intervention) were obtained from each patient's Social Insurance Office. The patients in the activity group returned to work significantly earlier than did the patients in the control group. The median number of physical therapist appointments before return to work was 5, and the average number of appointments was 10.7 (SD = 12.3). The average duration of sick leave attributable to LBP during the second follow-up year was 12.1 weeks (SD = 18.4) in the activity group and 19.6 weeks (SD = 20.7) in the control group. Four patients in the control group and 1 patient in the activity group received permanent disability pensions. The graded activity program made the patients occupationally functional again, as measured by return to work and significantly reduced long-term sick leave. A randomized clinical trial.
                To evaluate long-term clinical and economical effects of a light mobilization program on the duration of sick leave for patients with subacute low back pain.
                Twelve-month follow-up results from a previous study showed that early intervention with examination at a spine clinic, giving the patients information, reassurance, and encouragement to engage in physical activity as normal as possible had significant effect in reducing sick leave. At 12-month follow-up, 68.4% in the intervention group were off sick leave, as compared with 56.4% in the control group. Patients in this study were followed-up for a period of 3 years to investigate possible long-term effects.
                Four hundred fifty-seven patients placed on a sick list for 8 to 12 weeks for low back pain were randomized into two groups: an intervention group (n = 237) and a control group (n = 220). The intervention group was examined at a spine clinic and given information and advice to stay active. The control group was not examined at the clinic but was treated within the primary health care.
                Over the 3 years of observation, the intervention group had significantly fewer days of sickness compensation (average 125.7 d/person) than the control group (169.6 d/person). This difference is mainly caused by a more rapid return to work during the first year. There was no significant difference for the second or third year. In particular, there is no increased risk for reoccurrence of illness from early return to work. At 6-month follow-up, patients in the intervention group were less likely to use bed rest and more likely to use stretching and walking to cope with their back pain compared with the control group. This effect diminished. At 12-month follow-up, the only significant difference between the groups was in the use of stretching. Economic returns of the intervention were calculated in terms of increases in the net present value of production for the society because of the reduction in number of days on sick leave. Net benefits accumulated over 3 years of treating the 237 patients in the intervention group amount to approximately 2,822 dollars per person.
                For patients with subacute low back pain, a brief and simple early intervention with examination, information, reassurance, and encouragement to engage in physical activity as normal as possible had economic gains for the society. The effect occurred during the first year after intervention. There were no significant long-term effects of the intervention. The initial gain obtained during the first year does not lead to any increased costs or increased risks for reoccurrence of illness over the next 2 years. Population-based randomized controlled trial.
                To assess the effectiveness of workplace intervention and graded activity, separately and combined, for multidisciplinary rehabilitation of low back pain (LBP).
                Effective components for multidisciplinary rehabilitation of LBP are not yet established.
                Participants sick-listed 2 to 6 weeks due to nonspecific LBP were randomized to workplace intervention (n = 96) or usual care (n = 100). Workplace intervention consisted of workplace assessment, work modifications, and case management involving all stakeholders. Participants still sick-listed at 8 weeks were randomized for graded activity (n = 55) or usual care (n = 57). Graded activity comprised biweekly 1-hour exercise sessions based on operant-conditioning principles. Outcomes were lasting return to work, pain intensity and functional status, assessed at baseline, and at 12, 26, and 52 weeks after the start of sick leave.
                Time until return to work for workers with workplace intervention was 77 versus 104 days (median) for workers without this intervention (P = 0.02). Workplace intervention was effective on return to work (hazard ratio = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.3; P = 0.002). Graded activity had a negative effect on return to work (hazard ratio = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.6; P < 0.001) and functional status. Combined intervention had no effect.
                Workplace intervention is advised for multidisciplinary rehabilitation of subacute LBP. Graded activity or combined intervention is not advised. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of a behavioural medicine rehabilitation programme and the outcome of its two main components, compared to a 'treatment-as-usual' control group. The study employed a 4 x 5 repeated-measures design with four groups and five assessment periods during a 3-year follow-up. The group studied consisted of blue-collar and service/care workers on sick leave, identified in a nationwide health insurance scheme in Sweden. After inclusion, the subjects were randomised to one of the four conditions: behaviour-oriented physiotherapy (PT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), behavioural medicine rehabilitation consisting of PT+CBT (BM) and a 'treatment-as-usual' control group (CG). Outcome variables were sick leave, early retirement and health-related quality of life. A cost-effectiveness analysis, comparing the programmes, was made. The results showed, consistently, the full-time behavioural medicine programme being superior to the three other conditions. The strongest effect was found on females. Regarding sick leave, the mean difference in the per-protocol analysis between the BM programme and the control group was 201 days, thus reducing sick leave by about two-thirds of a working year. Rehabilitating women has a substantial impact on costs for production losses, whereas rehabilitating men seem to be effortless with no significant effect on either health or costs. In conclusion, a full-time behavioural medicine programme is a cost-effective method for improving health and increasing return to work in women working in blue-collar or service/care occupations and suffering from back/neck pain. Given the individual and economic burden of chronic work disability in low back pain patients, there is a need for effective preventive interventions. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether problem-solving therapy had a supplemental value when added to behavioral graded activity, regarding days of sick leave and work status.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                Employees who were recently on sick leave as a result of nonspecific low back pain were referred to the rehabilitation center by general practitioner, occupational physician, or rehabilitation physician. Forty-five employees had been randomly assigned to the experimental treatment condition that included behavioral graded activity and problem-solving therapy (GAPS), and 39 employees had been randomly assigned to behavioral graded activity and group education (GAGE).
                Days of sick leave and work status. Data were retrieved from occupational health services.
                Data analyses showed that employees in the GAPS group had significantly fewer days of sick leave in the second half-year after the intervention. Moreover, work status was more favorable for employees in this condition, in that more employees had a 100% return-to-work and fewer patients ended up receiving disability pensions one year after the intervention. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results.
                The addition of problem-solving therapy to behavioral graded activity had supplemental value in employees with nonspecific low back pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a transfer technique education programme (TT) alone or in combination with physical fitness training (TTPT) compared with a control group, who followed their usual routine. Eleven clinical hospital wards were cluster randomised to either intervention (six wards) or to control (five wards). The intervention cluster was individually randomised to TT (55 nurses) and TTPT (50 nurses), control (76 nurses). The transfer technique programme was a 4-d course of train-the-trainers to teach transfer technique to their colleagues. The physical training consisted of supervised physical fitness training 1 h twice per week for 8 weeks. Implementing transfer technique alone or in combination with physical fitness training among a hospital nursing staff did not, when compared to a control group, show any statistical differences according to self-reported low back pain (LBP), pain level, disability and sick leave at a 12-month follow-up. However, the individual randomised intervention subgroup (transfer technique/physical training) significantly improved the LBP-disability (p = 0.001). Although weakened by a high withdrawal rate, teaching transfer technique to nurses in a hospital setting needs to be thoroughly considered. Other priorities such as physical training may be taken into consideration. The current study supports the findings of other studies that introducing transfer technique alone has no effect in targeting LBP. However, physical training seems to have an influence in minimising the LBP consequences and may be important in the discussion of how to prevent LBP or the recurrence of LBP among nursing personnel. To evaluate the short-term effect of physical exercise and a cognitive intervention in low back pain.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                Ninety-three patients sick-listed for 8-12 weeks for sub-acute low back pain were randomized to an exercise regime (n = 30), a cognitive intervention (n = 34) or a control group (n = 29).
                Primary outcome measures were pain, disability, sick-listing and satisfaction with care. Secondary outcome measures were self-efficacy for pain and for function, fear-avoidance beliefs, emotional distress, generic health status and life satisfaction.
                Eighteen percent of subjects dropped out. Drop-out was most frequent in the exercise group. At 18 weeks after inclusion fear-avoidance beliefs were reduced in both intervention groups. The cognitive group demonstrated significant improvement in disability, self-efficacy for pain, emotional distress, general health and life satisfaction. Patients in the exercise group were significantly more satisfied with the treatment, and patients following the exercise protocol reduced pain significantly. No effect on sick-listing was seen.
                Cognitive intervention improved disability and may be feasible for most patients sick-listed in the sub-acute phase. Physical exercise reduced patients' symptoms, but requires high motivation by patients. Despite positive effects in intervention groups on variables considered as negative prognostic factors for long-term disability and sickness absence, interventions had no effect on sick-listing. The authors conducted a controlled clinical trial with 1-year follow-up to define the effectiveness of an intensive physical and psychosocial training program on patients with low back pain.
                The intervention group included 152 patients (mean age 40.5 yr, Million index 45.1/100), and the reference group included 141 patients (mean age 40.4 yr, Million-index 44.5/100).
                The progressive intervention program consisted of intensive physical training and psychosocial activation. The outcomes were physical and psychosocial measures, the pain and disability index (Million), sick leaves, and occupational handicap.
                The intervention was more efficient with respect to physical measures and pain and disability index. There were only mild or no differences in changes between the study groups in psychologic variables, sick leaves, or retirement.
                The intervention program could improve physical disability, but to improve occupational handicap, activities of the whole society (social legislation, labor market policy) are needed. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the effect of a weekly exercise program on short-term sick leave (less than 50 days) attributable to back pain and to determine whether changes in absenteeism were related to changes in cardiovascular fitness. Subjects were randomly assigned to an exercise group (n = 58) and a control group (n = 53). Sick leave attributable to back pain was determined in the intervention period of 1 1/2 years and a comparable 1 1/2-year period prior to the study. In the exercise group, the number of episodes of back pain and the number of sick-leave days attributable to back pain in the intervention period decreased by over 50%. Absenteeism attributable to back pain increased in the control group. The decrease in sick leave in the exercise group was not accompanied by any change in cardiovascular fitness. Suggestions for establishing exercise programs are given. The aim of this paper was to study the physical performance, pain, pain behavior and disability in patients with subacute low back pain (LBP). The patients were blue-collar workers and had been sick-listed for 8 weeks due to subacute low back pain. A total of 103 patients were randomized, 51 of them to the intervention group and the other to a control group. Recordings of physical performance and complaints of LBP were done before and after treatment in the intervention group. The proportion of patients with no complaints of LBP was significantly greater in the intervention group than in the control group at the one-year follow-up. The patients who intra-individually improved their physical performance also intra-individually decreased their complaints of LBP. The intra-individual improvements were suggested to be important for the individual return to work. A controlled randomized clinical trial was performed.
                To investigate the effect of a light mobilization program on the duration of sick leave for patients with subacute low back pain.
                Early intervention with information, diagnostics, and light mobilization may be a cost-effective method for returning patients quickly to normal activity. In this experiment, patients were referred to a low back pain clinic and given this simple and systematic program as an outpatient treatment.
                In this study, 457 patients sick-listed 8 to 12 weeks for low back pain, as recorded by the National Insurance Offices, were randomized into two groups: an intervention group (n = 237) and a control group (n = 220). The intervention group was examined at a spine clinic and given information and advice to stay active. The control group was not examined at the clinic, but was treated with conventional primary health care.
                At 12-month follow-up assessment, 68.4% in the intervention group had returned to full-duty work, as compared with 56.4% in the control group.
                Early intervention with examination, information, and recommendations to stay active showed significant effects in reducing sick leave for patients with low back pain. Randomized controlled trial.
                To Investigate the long-term effectiveness, costs, and effect modifiers of a mini-intervention, provided in addition to the usual care, and the incremental effect of a worksite visit for patients with subacute disabling low back pain (LBP).
                A mini-intervention was earlier proved to be an effective treatment for subacute LBP. Whether the beneficial effect is sustained is not known. Furthermore, modifiers of a treatment effect are largely unknown.
                A total of 164 patients with subacute LBP randomized into a mini-intervention (A, n = 56), a mini-intervention plus a worksite visit (B, n = 51), or the usual care (C, n = 57). Mini-intervention consisted of a detailed assessment of the patients' history, beliefs, and physical findings by a physician and a physiotherapist, followed by recommendations and advice. The usual care patients received the conventional care. Pain, disability, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care, days on sick leave, and health care consumption and costs were measured during a 24-month follow-up. Thirteen candidate modifiers were tested for each outcome.
                There were no differences between the three treatment arms regarding the intensity of pain, the perceived disability, or the health-related quality of life. However, mini-intervention decreased occurrence of daily (A vs., C, P = 0.01) and bothersome (A vs. C, P < 0.05) pain and increased treatment satisfaction. Costs resulting from LBP were lower in the intervention groups (A 4670 Euros, B 5990 Euros) than in C (C 9510 Euros) (A vs. C, P = 0.04; and B vs. C, not significant). The average number of days on sick leave was 30 in A, 45 in B, and 62 in C (A vs. C, P = 0.03; B vs. C, not significant). The perceived risk for not recovering was the strongest modifier of treatment effect. Mental and mental-physical workers in A and B were less often on sick leave than those in C.
                Mini-intervention is an effective treatment for subacute LBP. Despite lack of a significant effect on intensity of low back pain and perceived disability, mini-intervention, including proper recommendations and advice, according to the "active approach," is able to reduce LBP-related costs. The perceived risk of not recovering was the strongest modifier of treatment effect. In alleviating pain, the intervention was most effective among the patients with a high perceived risk of not recovering. Randomized controlled trial.
                To compare high- and low-intensity back schools with usual care in occupational health care.
                The content and intensity of back schools vary widely and the methodologic quality of randomized controlled trials is generally weak. Until now, no back school has proven to be superior for workers sick-listed because of subacute nonspecific low back pain.
                Workers (n = 299) sick-listed for a period of 3 to 6 weeks because of nonspecific low back pain were recruited by the occupational physician and randomly assigned to a high-intensity back school, a low-intensity back school, or care as usual. Outcome measures were days until return to work, total days of sick-leave, pain, functional status, kinesiophobia, and perceived recovery and were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months of follow-up. Principal analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.
                We randomly allocated 299 workers. Workers in the low-intensity back school returned to work faster compared with usual care and the high-intensity back school, with hazard ratios of 1.4 (P = 0.06) and 1.3 (P = 0.09), respectively. The comparison between high-intensity back school and usual care resulted in a hazard ratio of 1.0 (P = 0.83). The median number of sick-leave days was 68, 75, and 85 in the low-intensity back school, usual care, and high-intensity back school, respectively. Beneficial effects on functional status and kinesiophobia were found at 3 months in favor of the low-intensity back school. No substantial differences on pain and perceived recovery were found between groups.
                The low-intensity back school was most effective in reducing work absence, functional disability, and kinesiophobia, and more workers in this group scored a higher perceived recovery during the 6-month follow-up. To evaluate the effects of a physical training programme which is supervised and tailored to meet the needs of patients with subacute whiplash-associated disorders.
                A randomized controlled trial with follow-up at three and nine months after randomization.
                An interdisciplinary rehabilitation centre.
                Forty-seven patients with subacute disorders following a whiplash trauma.
                Patients were randomized to a supervised training group or a self-administered home training group.
                Primary outcome measures were the Self-Efficacy Scale, the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia and the Pain Disability Index. Secondary outcome measures were neck pain intensity, sensory and affective dimensions of pain, pain location and duration, muscle tenderness, grip strength, cervical mobility, sick leave and analgesic consumption.
                Forty patients (85%) completed the intervention period, and the drop-outs were followed up by intention-to-treat. The results showed that supervised training was significantly more favourable than home training, with a more rapid improvement in self-efficacy (P = 0.03), fear of movement/(re)injury (P = 0.03) and pain disability (P = 0.03) at three months. Further, supervised training significantly reduced the frequency of analgesic consumption (P = 0.03). The improvements were partly maintained at nine months, even though there was no amelioration in pain and physical disorders. Despite the favourable outcome, supervised intervention did not reduce sick leave.
                The findings indicate a treatment approach that is feasible in the rehabilitation of patients with subacute whiplash-associated disorders in the short term, but additional research is needed to extend these findings and elucidate treatment strategies that also are cost effective. To evaluate the impact of an educational low back pain prevention program in a cohort of hospital employees.
                A cohort of 136 nonclerical hospital employees attended classes on safe postures and patient handling, then received advice by educators who observed them while they performed their typical workday tasks. Each of the subjects in this intervention group was matched on age, sex, and job category with a control. Musculoskeletal complaints and changes in habits during work and recreational activities were evaluated before the intervention (or the corresponding date in the control group) and after two years.
                In the intervention group, 36% of subjects with low back pain at baseline were free of this symptom at follow-up, whereas only 26% were in the opposite situation. The proportion of subjects with low back pain episodes lasting longer than 30 days increased significantly from baseline to follow-up in the control group (from 30% to 49%) but not in the intervention group. The number of sick leaves longer than 30 days decreased significantly in the intervention group. Only 33% of the intervention group subjects felt the intervention had been helpful; this proportion varied across job categories.
                Our data suggest that differences in job categories should be taken into account when designing educational programs for preventing low back pain. They also indicate that back school programs may be more effective in subjects with a history of low back pain, whereas instruction on safe postures and patient handling may be the best approach in subjects who have not previously experienced low back pain. Observing and providing advice to employees while they are performing their usual duties may be an essential component of low back pain prevention. A randomized controlled trial in occupational health practice was conducted.
                To study the efficacy of early management of workers with low back pain by occupational physicians, as compared with management by the supervisor only.
                Health care and university workers with back pain and on sick leave for less than 1 month were included in the study.
                Patients with low back pain for at least 10 days on sick leave were randomly assigned to early management by the occupational physician (n = 61) or to a reference group with management by the worker's supervisor during the first 3 months of sick leave (n = 59). The patients were observed for 1 year and compared in terms of time until return to work, pain intensity, functional disability, and general health perception. The occupational physicians were provided with management guidelines.
                No significant differences were found after 3 and 12 months of follow-up evaluation in terms of time until return to work (hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.90-1.90) or in terms of other health outcomes. Recurrences, however, occurred more frequently in the intervention group, but the total duration of sick leave in 1 year did not differ between the groups.
                The findings do not show a significant positive effect of an early intervention by occupational physicians on workers with low back pain. This might reflect the early phase of disability or the low intensity of the intervention resulting from overestimation of the physicians' compliance with the guidelines. Several new studies have indicated that an active approach to patients with chronic disabling low back pain (LBP) seems effective. Some of these studies emphasize the importance of dealing with the patient's total situation in comprehensive multidisciplinary programs--the bio-psycho-social model. However, these programs are expensive. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rehabilitation outcome from three different active programs in terms of: (1) return-to-work rate, (2) days of sick leave, (3) health-care contacts, (4) pain and disability scores, and (5) staying physically active. The subjects included 132 patients randomized to the study, of whom 123 started one of the treatment programs. They had all had at least 6 months of chronic LBP. The patients were randomized into one of three programs: group 1--a full-time, intensive 3-week multidisciplinary program, including active physical and ergonomic training and psychological pain management, followed by 1 day weekly for the subsequent 3 weeks; group 2--active physical training, twice a week for 6 weeks, for a total of 24h; group 3--psychological pain management combined with active physical training, twice a week for 6 weeks, also for a total of 24h. The results presented here are based on data collected 4 months following treatment, which shows an 86% response rate. The initial examination and the follow-up evaluation were performed by a blinded observer. The results show that 4 months after treatment, the intensive multidisciplinary program is superior to the less intensive programs in terms of return-to-work rate, health-care contacts, pain and disability scores, and staying physically active.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) The study was carried out as an open, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group study with an observation period of 12 months. Four norwegian physiotherapy institutes took part. Patients were subsequently followed for 12 months of home exercise on their own, without for 12 months of home exercise on their own, without the supervision of a physiotherapist.
                1) To investigate and compare the effects of two different exercise programs on low back problems in patients after a 1-year training program under the supervision of a physiotherapist. 2) To investigate the effect supervision by, and motivation from, physiotherapists has on training compliance and efficacy.
                After ordinary physiotherapy treatment for low back problems, patients were randomly allocated either to a conventional training program designed by physiotherapists or to a training program using a new Norwegian-developed training apparatus called the TerapiMaster. The study included 153 patients with low back problems, all of whom had been referred to physiotherapy by their general practitioners. One hundred twenty-six patients were followed for an additional 12 months when performing home exercise programs on their own.
                Monitoring patient satisfaction with the training program, compliance with the program, and absenteeism from work during the training period.
                Patient satisfaction with both training programs was high, with about 83% of participating patients completing the study in accordance with the protocol. Mean absenteeism (SD) during the preceding year totaled 82.5 days (19.8) in the conventional training group and 61.6 days (14.7) in the TerapiMaster group. Significant reductions to 17.2 days (6.0) and 16.4 days (5.3) in the two groups, respectively, were recorded during the training period, corresponding to a 75% to 80% reduction compared with the preceding 1-year period. Mean absenteeism showed a further significant decline during the 12-month period without supervised training. The average values were 9.9 days (3.2) for conventional training and 9.3 days (3.1) for the TerapiMaster, respectively.
                Both exercise programs reduced absenteeism significantly (75-80%). No difference in the effects of the two different programs was discernible. Regular follow-up through encouragement and variation in the training programs appear to be important factors for motivating patients to adhere to regular exercise programs for low back problems. This thesis was corroborated by the 12-month study of unsupervised exercise. Intensive group training using principles of graded activity has been proven to be effective in occupational care for workers with chronic low back pain. Objective of the study was to compare the effects of an intensive group training protocol aimed at returning to normal daily activities and guideline physiotherapy for primary care patients with non-specific chronic low back pain. The study was designed as pragmatic randomised controlled trial with a setup of 105 primary care physiotherapists in 49 practices and 114 patients with non-specific low back pain of more than 12 weeks duration participated in the study. In the intensive group training protocol exercise therapy, back school and operant-conditioning behavioural principles are combined. Patients were treated during 10 individual sessions along 20 group sessions. Usual care consisted of physiotherapy according to the Dutch guidelines for Low Back Pain. Main outcome measures were functional disability (Roland Morris disability questionnaire), pain intensity, perceived recovery and sick leave because of low back pain assessed at baseline and after 6, 13, 26 and 52 weeks. Both an intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol analysis were performed. Multilevel analysis did not show significant differences between both treatment groups on any outcome measures during the complete follow-up period, with one exception. After 26 weeks the protocol group showed more reduction in pain intensity than the guideline group, but this difference was absent after 52 weeks. We finally conclude that an intensive group training protocol was not more effective than usual physiotherapy for chronic low back pain. Randomized controlled trial.
                To investigate the effectiveness and costs of a mini-intervention, provided in addition to the usual care, and the incremental effect of a work site visit for patients with subacute disabling low back pain.
                There is lack of data on cost-effectiveness of brief interventions for patients with prolonged low back pain.
                A total of 164 patients with subacute low back pain were randomized to a mini-intervention group (A), a work site visit group (B), or a usual care group (C). Groups A (n = 56) and B (n = 51) underwent one assessment by a physician plus a physiotherapist. Group B received a work site visit in addition. Group C served as controls (n = 57) and was treated in municipal primary health care. All patients received a leaflet on back pain. Pain, disability, specific and generic health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care, days on sick leave, and use and costs of health care consumption were measured at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups.
                During follow-up, fewer subjects had daily pain in Groups A and B than in Group C (Group A Group C, = 0.002; Group B Group C, = 0.030). In Group A, pain was less bothersome (Group A Group C, = 0.032) and interfered less with daily life (Group A Group C, = 0.040) than among controls. Average days on sick leave were 19 in Group A, 28 in Group B, and 41 in Group C (Group A Group C, = 0.019). Treatment satisfaction was better in the intervention groups than among the controls, and costs were lowest in the mini-intervention group.
                Mini-intervention reduced daily back pain symptoms and sickness absence, improved adaptation to pain and patient satisfaction among patients with subacute low back pain, without increasing health care costs. A work site visit did not increase effectiveness.
The effectiveness of physical conditioning programs in reducing sick leave when compared to usual care or other exercises in workers with back pain remains uncertain. In workers with acute back pain, these programs probably have no effect on sick leave, but there may be a positive effect on sick leave for workers with subacute and chronic back pain. Workplace involvement might improve the outcome. Better understanding of the mechanism behind physical conditioning programs and return-to-work is needed to be able to develop more effective interventions.