Multidimensional intervention and sickness absence in assistant nursing students

Background When handling patients, nursing assistant (NA) students and nurse students are frequently exposed to risk factors for low back pain (LBP) including sudden loads and twisting and bending of the spine. Furthermore, LBP is a major cause of sickness absence. Aims To ascertain if a multidimens...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Occupational medicine (Oxford) 2009-12, Vol.59 (8), p.563-569
Hauptverfasser: Svensson, Annemarie Lyng, Strøyer, Jesper, Ebbehøj, Niels Erik, Schultz-Larsen, Kirsten, Marott, Jacob Louis, Mortensen, Ole Steen, Suadicani, Poul
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background When handling patients, nursing assistant (NA) students and nurse students are frequently exposed to risk factors for low back pain (LBP) including sudden loads and twisting and bending of the spine. Furthermore, LBP is a major cause of sickness absence. Aims To ascertain if a multidimensional prevention programme combining physical training, patient transfer technique and stress management prevents sickness absence and LBP in NA students. Methods The study was a 14-month cluster randomized controlled study. The participants were NA students from 37 randomly selected classes located at two schools of health and social care in Copenhagen, Denmark. The participants completed a comprehensive questionnaire regarding sickness absence, LBP and psychosocial factors on commencement and after completion of the study. Results Of 766 female NA students, 668 (87%) completed the baseline questionnaire. Sickness absence during the study period increased in both groups but the increase was significantly lower in the intervention group than the control group, mean (standard deviation) number of days 12 (20) versus 18 (34), P < 0.05. The intervention group reported no change in the mean level of general health perception, energy/fatigue or psychological well-being at follow-up, while the control group reported a decline on those scales. There were no significant differences in the prevalence of LBP at follow-up between the intervention and control group. Conclusions Compared to the control group, the intervention group had significantly less sickness absence. The intervention had no preventive effect on LBP prevalence.
ISSN:0962-7480
1471-8405
DOI:10.1093/occmed/kqp124