Non-traumatic arm, neck and shoulder complaints: prevalence, course and prognosis in a Dutch university population

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Rob A de Bie¹  Caroline HG Bastiaenen¹  Vivian EJ Bruls¹ 

[1] Department of Epidemiology, Centre for Evidence Based Physiotherapy and Caphri Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

关键词: Survey;    Cohort study;    Course;    Prognostic factors;    Prevalence;    Upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders;    CANS;   

Others  :  1134252
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-14-8

 received in 2012-05-21, accepted in 2012-12-27,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Complaints of arm, neck and shoulder are a major health problem in Western societies and a huge economic burden due to sickness absence and health-care costs. In 2003 the 12-month prevalence’s in the Netherlands were estimated at 31.4% for neck pain, 30.3% for shoulder pain, and 17.5% for wrist and hand pain. Research data suggest that these complaints are increasingly common among university students. The aims of the present study are to provide insight into the prevalence of complaints of arm, neck or shoulder in a university population, to evaluate the clinical course of these complaints and to identify prognostic factors which influence this course.

Methods

The present study is designed as a prospective cohort study, in which a cross-sectional survey is embedded. A self-administered cross-sectional survey will be conducted to gain insight into the prevalence of complaints of arm, neck or shoulder among university students and staff, and to identify persons who are eligible for follow up in the prognostic cohort study. Patients with a new complaint of pain and discomfort in neck and upper extremities between 18–65 years will be asked to participate in the prognostic cohort study. At baseline, after 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks individual patient data will be collected by means of digitized self-administered questionnaires. The following putative prognostic determinants will be investigated: socio-demographic factors, work-related factors, complaint characteristics, physical activity and psychosocial factors.

The primary outcome is subjective recovery. Secondary outcomes are functional limitations of the arm, neck, shoulder and hand, and complaint severity during the previous week.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first prognostic study on the course of complaints of arm, neck or shoulder that is conducted within a university population. Moreover, there are hardly any studies that have estimated the prevalence of these complaints among university students. The results of this study can be used for patient education and management decisions, as well as for the development of interventions. Moreover, identification of high risk groups in the population is needed to generate hypotheses or explanations of health differences and for the design of prevention programs.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Bruls et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Picavet HS, Hazes JM: Prevalence of self reported musculoskeletal diseases is high. Ann Rheum Dis 2003, 62(7):644-650.
• [2]Urwin M, et al.: Estimating the burden of musculoskeletal disorders in the community: the comparative prevalence of symptoms at different anatomical sites, and the relation to social deprivation. Ann Rheum Dis 1998, 57(11):649-655.
• [3]Health council of the Netherlands. RSI. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands; 2000. publication no. 2000/22
• [4]Picavet HS, Schouten JS: Musculoskeletal pain in the Netherlands: prevalences, consequences and risk groups, the DMC(3)-study. Pain 2003, 102(1–2):167-178.
• [5]Schlossberg EB, et al.: Upper extremity pain and computer use among engineering graduate students. Am J Ind Med 2004, 46(3):297-303.
• [6]Katz JN, et al.: Assessment of upper extremity role functioning in students. Am J Ind Med 2002, 41(1):19-26.
• [7]Marcus M, et al.: A prospective study of computer users: II, Postural risk factors for musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders. Am J Ind Med 2002, 41(4):236-249.
• [8]Gerr F, et al.: A prospective study of computer users: I, Study design and incidence of musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders. Am J Ind Med 2002, 41(4):221-235.
• [9]Walker-Bone K, et al.: The anatomical pattern and determinants of pain in the neck and upper limbs: an epidemiologic study. Pain 2004, 109(1–2):45-51.
• [10]Bot SD, et al.: Predictors of outcome in neck and shoulder symptoms: a cohort study in general practice. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005, 30(16):E459-E470.
• [11]Karels CH, et al.: Social and psychological factors influenced the course of arm, neck and shoulder complaints. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60(8):839-848.
• [12]Feleus A, et al.: Prognostic indicators for non-recovery of non-traumatic complaints at arm, neck and shoulder in general practice–6 months follow-up. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007, 46(1):169-176.
• [13]Keijsers E, et al.: Psychosocial factors predicted nonrecovery in both specific and nonspecific diagnoses at arm, neck, and shoulder. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63(12):1370-1379.
• [14]Hoogendoorn WE, et al.: Systematic review of psychosocial factors at work and private life as risk factors for back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000, 25(16):2114-2125.
• [15]Cole DC, Hudak PL: Prognosis of nonspecific work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and upper extremity. Am J Ind Med 1996, 29(6):657-668.
• [16]Borghouts JA, Koes BW, Bouter LM: The clinical course and prognostic factors of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review. Pain 1998, 77(1):1-13.
• [17]Feuerstein M, et al.: Development of a screen for predicting clinical outcomes in patients with work-related upper extremity disorders. J Occup Environ Med 2000, 42(7):749-761.
• [18]Huisstede BM, et al.: Multidisciplinary consensus on the terminology and classification of complaints of the arm, neck and/or shoulder. Occup Environ Med 2007, 64(5):313-319.
• [19]Eltayeb S, et al.: Prevalence of complaints of arm, neck and shoulder among computer office workers and psychometric evaluation of a risk factor questionnaire. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2007, 8:68. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Karasek R, et al.: The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol 1998, 3(4):322-355.
• [21]Hildebrandt VH, et al.: Dutch Musculoskeletal Questionnaire: description and basic qualities. Ergonomics 2001, 44(12):1038-1055.
• [22]Homepage Fastguide. http://www.fastguide.nl webcite. [cited]
• [23]Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C: Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 1996, 29(6):602-608.
• [24]Bombardier C: Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000, 25(24):3100-3103.
• [25]Ostelo RW, de Vet HC: Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2005, 19(4):593-607.
• [26]Von Korff M, Jensen MP, Karoly P: Assessing global pain severity by self-report in clinical and health services research. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000, 25(24):3140-3151.
• [27]Waddell G, et al.: A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain 1993, 52(2):157-168.
• [28]Sullivan MJLBS, Pivik J: The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: development and validation. Phychological Assessment 1995, 7:524-533.
• [29]Crombez GVJ: The pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Ongepubliceerde geautoriseerde Nederlandse vertaling 1996.
• [30]Van Damme S, et al.: A confirmatory factor analysis of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale: invariant factor structure across clinical and non-clinical populations. Pain 2002, 96(3):319-324.
• [31]Bot SD, et al.: Internal consistency and validity of a new physical workload questionnaire. Occup Environ Med 2004, 61(12):980-986.
• [32]Cardol M, et al.: The development of a handicap assessment questionnaire: the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA). Clin Rehabil 1999, 13(5):411-419.
• [33]Kemper HOW, Stiggelhout M: Consensus about the Dutch recommendations for physical activity to promote health (Consensus over de Nederlandse norm gezond bewegen). Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen 2000, 78:180-183.
• [34]Kamper SJ, et al.: Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63(7):760-766. e1