ArticleBMJ open2025
Low back pain among academic staff at a university in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLow back pain (LBP) is a common occupational health problem among academic staff, often associated with prolonged sitting, poor ergonomics and psychosocial stress. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of LBP and its associated factors among academic staff at a university in Ethiopia. DESIGN AND
settingA cross-sectional survey was conducted among academic staff at the University of Gondar (Gondar, Ethiopia) using simple random sampling from March to April 2021.
participantsA total of 607 workers participated in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: A self-administered, structured Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire was used to assess the occurrences of LBP over the past 12 months. Data were analysed using Stata (V.14), and associations between variables were examined using binary logistic regression. Results are presented as adjusted ORs (AOR) with 95% CIs, with statistical significance set at p<0.05.
resultsThe prevalence of LBP in the last 7 days was 44.8% (95% CI 40.8% to 48.86%), and over the past 12 months it was 55.68% (95% CI 51.63% to 59.68%). A significant difference in 7-day prevalence was observed between female and male participants (39.86% vs 15.81%, respectively; χ² = 0.887; p=0.02). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, being female was associated with higher odds of LBP (AOR=1.72; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.57; p=0.009), as was working more than 8 hours per day (AOR=1.45; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.10; p=0.038), physical inactivity (AOR=1.88; 95% CI 1.30 to 2.72; p=0.001) and prolonged standing during work hours (AOR=1.63; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.59; p=0.036).
conclusionThe prevalence of LBP among academic staff is high. Targeted interventions are recommended to address LBP, focusing on gender-sensitive strategies to mitigate the additional burden on female staff, time management to reduce long working hours and workplace programmes to limit sedentary behaviour, encourage physical activity and improve ergonomic awareness.
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.