Therapeutic and Preventive Efficacy of an Intervention on Workers in a Back School

• Published in: International journal of environmental research and public health 2022-01, Vol.19 (2), p.1000
• Main Authors: Rodríguez, Alberto Benito, Ternavasio-de la Vega, Hugo Guillermo, Santos Sánchez, José Ángel, Iglesias de Sena, Helena, Marcos, Miguel, Chamorro, Antonio Javier, Mirón-Canelo, José Antonio
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Absenteeism; Autonomy; Back pain; Back Pain - epidemiology; Back Pain - prevention & control; Construction industry; Cost control; Employee benefits; Exercise; GDP; Gross Domestic Product; Humans; Hypotheses; Neck; Neck Pain - epidemiology; Occupational diseases; Pain; Pathology; Patients; Primary care; Questionnaires; Schools; Sick Leave; Statistical analysis; Variables; Workers
• ISSN: 1660-4601; 1661-7827; 1660-4601
• DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19021000

Back pain and its ailments are the main cause of absenteeism and sick leave. Furthermore, the cause of pain and disability in a large number of workers is unknown, and treatments are not effective in controlling it. For this reason, the Back Schools (BSs) provide theoretical and practical training to workers so that they can acquire knowledge and skills that will allow them to adequately manage their back problems, enabling them to recover their autonomy and prevent relapses. The aim of the study is to analyse the efficacy of a BS by means of the evaluation of pain and disability scales in workers in different sectors and in construction. The most important clinical benefits obtained after the intervention of a BS are the reduction of pain and disability. Statistically significant and clinically relevant results have been observed between the initial assessment and the 6-month review. BS has been shown to be effective in reducing low back and neck pain and disability during the first 6 months of follow-up. Construction workers have pain and disability rates at the overall mean and with improvements between the initial assessment and the 6-month review. Their rates of improvement are clinically more relevant than for the overall population analysed.