ArticleBMJ open2024
Identifying pain profiles in employees including work-related factors and pain perceptions: a cross-sectional study in Belgian companies.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesStudies usually investigate a limited number or a predefined combinations of risk factors for sickness absence in employees with pain. We examined frequently occurring combinations across a wide range of work-related factors and pain perceptions.
designCross-sectional study.
settingBelgian companies that are under supervision of IDEWE, an external service for prevention and protection at work.
participantsIn total, 249 employees experiencing pain for at least 6 weeks were included and filled out an online survey. OUTCOMES: Latent profile analysis was used to differentiate profiles of work-related factors (physical demands, workload, social support and autonomy) and pain perceptions (catastrophising, fear-avoidance beliefs and pain acceptance). Subsequently, profiles were compared on sociodemographics (age, gender, level of education, work arrangement, duration of complaints, multisite pain and sickness absence in the previous year) and predictors of sickness absence (behavioural intention and perceived behavioural control).
resultsFour profiles were identified. Profile 1 (38.2%) had favourable scores and profile 4 (14.9%) unfavourable scores across all indicators. Profile 2 (33.3%) had relatively high physical demands, moderate autonomy levels and favourable scores on the other indicators. Profile 3 (13.7%) showed relatively low physical demands, moderate autonomy levels, but unfavourable scores on the other indicators. Predictors of profiles were age (OR 0.93 and 95% CI (0.89 to 0.98)), level of education (OR 0.28 and 95% CI (0.1 to 0.79)) and duration of sickness absence in the previous year (OR 2.29 and 95% CI (0.89 to 5.88)). Significant differences were observed in behavioural intention (χ
conclusionThis study highlights the significance of considering the interplay between work-related factors and pain perceptions in employees. Unfavourable scores on a single work factor might not translate into maladaptive pain perceptions or subsequent sickness absence, if mitigating factors are in place. Special attention must be devoted to employees dealing with unfavourable working conditions along with maladaptive pain perceptions. In this context, social support emerges as an important factor influencing sickness absence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.