Search

This study prospectively examined the extent to which a set of medical, physical, ergonomic, occupational psychosocial, and individual psychosocial variables would predict clinical outcome associated with a diverse set of work-related upper extremity disorders in recently diagnosed individuals. This investigation was designed to develop a tool for use in a clinical setting to assist in identifying patients at risk for poorer outcome. Outcome was measured at 1, 3, and 12 months after completing a baseline questionnaire. Outcome status was based on a median split of a standardized composite index (symptoms, function, workdays lost, and mental health). Logistic regression indicated that predictors of poorer outcome at 1 month were: upper extremity comorbidity (risk ratio [RR], 1.58), pain severity (RR, 1.45), ergonomic risk exposure (RR, 1.07), low job support (RR, 1.03), and pain coping style (RR, 1.54). At 3 months, poorer outcome was predicted by: symptom severity (RR, 10.46), job stress (RR, 1.20), and pain coping style (RR, 1.98). The number of prior treatments/providers (RR, 1.77), past recommendation for surgery (RR, 6.43), and pain coping style were found to predict poorer outcome at 12 months. Sensitivity and specificity, respectively, for the models were 77.4% and 71.8% at 1 month, 80.6% and 82.4% at 3 months, and 80.6% and 83.3% at 12 months. The results indicate that baseline measures of ergonomic and psychosocial stress, pain severity, and pain coping style predict clinical outcome at shorter intervals, whereas number of past treatments/providers, recommendation for surgery and pain coping style predict longer-term outcome. The resulting prognostic screen provides a simple tool that assesses the multidimensional nature of work-related upper extremity disorders and predicts clinical outcome. Furthermore, the findings suggest the importance of early intervention that addresses both physical and psychosocial stressors at work. Specific recommendations to reduce the impact of observed risk factors are discussed.

Background Research suggests that exposure to occupational stressors are related to thepresence and/or exacerbation of work-related upper extremity symptoms in office workers. Also worker's response to work demands and/or job stressors (i.e., workstyle) may exacerbate symptom severity and impact function. The present study examines the association among work demands, job stress and workstyle on pain and function. Methods 124 symptomatic female office workers completed a questionnaire measuring demographics, medical history, work demands, perception of the work environment, workstyle, pain intensity, functional impact, and time lost from work. Results Heightened job stress and the tendency to continue to work in a way that contributes to pain to ensure high quality (dimension of workstyle) were related to pain intensity at work and decreased function. These variables, in addition to hours worked per year, were related to increased pain experienced across the work week. The model tested did not predict the occurrence of lost time. Conclusions The present findings provide support for the association between job stress, workstyle, upper extremity pain and function. While it is not possible to determine the exact direction of the observed relationships, these results are consistent with prior research indicating the potential significance of job stress and workstyle on symptom exacerbation and functional limitations. Implications for evaluation and intervention are discussed. Am. J. Ind. Med. 38:507–515, 2000. © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a disorder frequently encountered by occupational health care specialists. The health care management of this disorder has involved a diverse set of clinical procedures. The present article is a review of the literature related to CTS with an emphasis on occupational-related CTS. MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycLIT, and NIOSHTIC databases from 1985–1997 were searched for treatment outcome studies related to CTS. Treatments of interest included surgery, physical therapy, drug therapy, chiropractic treatment, biobehavioral interventions, and occupational rehabilitation. A systematic review of the effects of these interventions on symptoms, medical status, function, return to work, psychological well-being, and patient satisfaction was completed. Compared to other treatments, the majority of studies assessed the effects of surgical interventions. Endoscopic release was associated with higher levels of physical functioning and fewer days to return to work when compared to open release. Limited evidence indicated: 1) steroid injections and oral use of B6 were associated with pain reduction; 2) in comparison to splinting, range of motion exercises appeared to be associated with less pain and fewer days to return to work; 3) cognitive behavior therapy yielded reductions in pain, anxiety, and depression; and, 4) multidisciplinary occupational rehabilitation was associated with a higher percentage of chronic cases returning to work than usual care. Workers' compensation status was associated with increased time to return to work following surgery. Conclusions are preliminary due to the small number of well-controlled studies, variability in duration of symptoms and disability, and the broad range of reported outcome measures. While there are several opinions regarding effective treatment, there is very little scientific support for the range of options currently used in practice. Despite the emerging evidence of the multivariate nature of CTS, the majority of outcome studies have focused on single interventions directed at individual etiological factors or symptoms and functional limitations secondary to CTS. Am. J. Ind. Med. 35:232–245, 1999. © 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Occupational upper-extremity disorders have been associated with prolonged pain and work disability. Using the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency database, the present case-control studies (n = 434 and n = 342) investigated the contribution of demographic, physical, occupational psychosocial, and individual psychosocial factors to work disability in soldiers with upper-extremity disorders. Age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.11), rank (private E-2: OR = 3.79; private first class: OR = 4.39; specialist or corporal: OR = 2.17), ethnic group (white: OR = 1.54), and occupational stress ("often": OR = 2.46) were found to predict disability. The results highlight the importance of occupational stress as a predictor of disability and the potential utility of addressing this factor in the development of empirically based disability prevention strategies. This investigation also emphasizes the need for research that delineates the biobehavioral mechanisms linking occupational stress to prolonged symptoms and subsequent work disability. Language: en

Objective This study aimed to describe methodological challenges encountered in designing a follow-up assessment of US Army Soldiers who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Study Design and Setting The Neurocognition Deployment Health Study (NDHS) enrolled 1595 soldiers at 2 military installations, starting in 2003. Prior work compared predeployment and postdeployment assessments among Iraq-deployed and nondeployed soldiers. The current phase, as VA Cooperative Studies Program #566, is collecting follow-up data on participants who were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Specific aims include evaluating the prevalence and course of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the persistence of previously observed neuropsychological changes, and the relationship of these changes—and traumatic brain injury—to subsequent PTSD. The target sample size is 817 participants, with 200 participants also receiving performance-based neuropsychological assessments. Results We describe 6 methodological challenges and their implications for longitudinal research among a “closed,” young, mobile study population: transitioning from cluster-based (battalion) sampling to individual-level sampling; overcoming practical barriers (such as location searches); selecting exposure and outcome measures that combine previously collected and current study data; accounting for loss of an exposed (deployed) versus (nonexposed) nondeployed comparison; determining timing of assessments; and developing a complex statistical analysis plan. Enrollment is ongoing. Conclusions The study provides unique insights regarding elements of study design and analysis that are relevant to longitudinal research. In particular, the dynamic “real-life” context of military deployment provides a basis for applying observational methodology to characterize mental health disorders associated with exposure to war-zone deployment and other contexts associated with exposure to extreme stress.

Objectives: Our objective was to compare long-term outcomes of deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the globus pallidus interna (GPi) and subthalamic nucleus (STN) for patients with Parkinson disease (PD) in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Methods: Patients randomly assigned to GPi (n = 89) or STN DBS (n = 70) were followed for 36 months. The primary outcome was motor function on stimulation/off medication using the Unified Parkinson9s Disease Rating Scale motor subscale. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and neurocognitive function. Results: Motor function improved between baseline and 36 months for GPi (41.1 to 27.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] −16.4 to −10.8; p p p = 0.59). Health-related quality of life improved at 6 months on all subscales (all p values significant), but improvement diminished over time. Mattis Dementia Rating Scale scores declined faster for STN than GPi patients ( p = 0.01); other neurocognitive measures showed gradual decline overall. Conclusions: The beneficial effect of DBS on motor function was stable and comparable by target over 36 months. Slight declines in quality of life following initial gains and gradual decline in neurocognitive function likely reflect underlying disease progression and highlight the importance of nonmotor symptoms in determining quality of life. Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class III evidence that improvement of motor symptoms of PD by DBS remains stable over 3 years and does not differ by surgical target. Neurology ® 2012;79:55–65

Over the past two decades, 12 large epidemiologic studies and 2 registries have focused on U.S. veterans of the 1990–1991 Gulf War Era. We conducted a review of these studies’ research tools to identify existing gaps and overlaps of efforts to date, and to advance development of the next generation of Gulf War Era survey tools. Overall, we found that many of the studies used similar instruments. Questions regarding exposures were more similar across studies than other domains, while neurocognitive and psychological tools were the most variable. Many studies focused on self-reported survey results, with a range of validation practices. However, physical exams, biomedical assessments, and specimen storage were not common. This review suggests that while research may be able to pool data from past surveys, future surveys need to consider how their design can yield data comparable with previous surveys. Additionally, data that incorporate recent technologies in specimen and genetic analyses would greatly enhance such survey data. When combined with existing data on deployment-related exposures and post-deployment health conditions, longitudinal follow-up of existing studies within this collaborative framework could represent an important step toward improving the health of veterans.

Background Improving a patient's ability to self-monitor and manage changes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) symptoms may improve outcomes. Objective To determine the efficacy of a comprehensive care management program (CCMP) in reducing the risk for COPD hospitalization. Design A randomized, controlled trial comparing CCMP with guideline-based usual care. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00395083) SETTING: 20 Veterans Affairs hospital-based outpatient clinics. Participants Patients hospitalized for COPD in the past year. Intervention The CCMP included COPD education during 4 individual sessions and 1 group session, an action plan for identification and treatment of exacerbations, and scheduled proactive telephone calls for case management. Patients in both the intervention and usual care groups received a COPD informational booklet; their primary care providers received a copy of COPD guidelines and were advised to manage their patients according to these guidelines. Patients were randomly assigned, stratifying by site based on random, permuted blocks of variable size. Measurements The primary outcome was time to first COPD hospitalization. Staff blinded to study group performed telephone-based assessment of COPD exacerbations and hospitalizations, and all hospitalizations were blindly adjudicated. Secondary outcomes included non-COPD health care use, all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, disease knowledge, and self-efficacy. Results Of the eligible patients, 209 were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 217 to the usual care group. Citing serious safety concerns, the data monitoring committee terminated the intervention before the trial's planned completion after 426 (44%) of the planned total of 960 patients were enrolled. Mean follow-up was 250 days. When the study was stopped, the 1-year cumulative incidence of COPD-related hospitalization was 27% in the intervention group and 24% in the usual care group (hazard ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.70 to 1.80]; P= 0.62). There were 28 deaths from all causes in the intervention group versus 10 in the usual care group (hazard ratio, 3.00 [CI, 1.46 to 6.17]; P= 0.003). Cause could be assigned in 27 (71%) deaths. Deaths due to COPD accounted for the largest difference: 10 in the intervention group versus 3 in the usual care group (hazard ratio, 3.60 [CI, 0.99 to 13.08]; P= 0.053). Limitations Available data could not fully explain the excess mortality in the intervention group. Ability to assess the quality of the educational sessions provided by the case managers was limited. Conclusion A CCMP in patients with severe COPD had not decreased COPD-related hospitalizations when the trial was stopped prematurely. The CCMP was associated with unanticipated excess mortality, results that differ markedly from similar previous trials. A data monitoring committee should be considered in the design of clinical trials involving behavioral interventions.

Importance Many Vietnam-era women veterans served in or near war zones and may have experienced stressful or traumatic events during their service. Although posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is well studied among men who served in Vietnam, no major epidemiologic investigation of PTSD among women has been performed. Objectives To assess (1) the onset and prevalence of lifetime and current PTSD for women who served during the Vietnam era, stratified by wartime location (Vietnam, near Vietnam, or the United States), and (2) the extent to which wartime location was associated with PTSD, with adjustment for demographics, service characteristics, and wartime exposures. Design, Setting, and Participants Survey of 8742 women who were active-duty military personnel in the US Armed Forces at any time from July 4, 1965, through March 28, 1973, and alive as of survey receipt as part of Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study 579, HealthVIEWS. Data were obtained from mailed and telephone surveys from May 16, 2011, through August 5, 2012, and analyzed from June 26, 2013, through July 30, 2015. Main Outcomes and Measures Lifetime and current PTSD as measured by the PTSD module of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, version 3.0; onset of PTSD; and wartime experiences as measured by the Women’s Wartime Exposure Scale–Revised. Results Among the 4219 women (48.3%) who completed the survey and a telephone interview, the weighted prevalence (95% CI) of lifetime PTSD was 20.1% (18.3%-21.8%), 11.5% (9.1%-13.9%), and 14.1% (12.4%-15.8%) for the Vietnam, near-Vietnam, and US cohorts, respectively. The weighted prevalence (95% CI) of current PTSD was 15.9% (14.3%-17.5%), 8.1% (6.0%-10.2%), and 9.1% (7.7%-10.5%) for the 3 cohorts, respectively. Few cases of PTSD among the Vietnam or near-Vietnam cohorts were attributable to premilitary onset (weighted prevalence, 2.9% [95% CI, 2.2%-3.7%] and 2.9% [95% CI, 1.7%-4.2%], respectively). Unadjusted models for lifetime and current PTSD indicated that women who served in Vietnam were more likely to meet PTSD criteria than women who mainly served in the United States (odds ratio [OR] for lifetime PTSD, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.28-1.83]; OR for current PTSD, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.53-2.33]). When we adjusted for wartime exposures, serving in Vietnam or near Vietnam did not increase the odds of having current PTSD (adjusted ORs, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.75-1.46] and 0.77 [95% CI, 0.52-1.14], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance The prevalence of PTSD for the Vietnam cohort was higher than previously documented. Vietnam service significantly increased the odds of PTSD relative to US service; this effect appears to be associated with wartime exposures, especially sexual discrimination or harassment and job performance pressures. Results suggest long-lasting mental health effects of Vietnam-era service among women veterans.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Studies Program has been conducting comparative effectiveness clinical trials for nearly 4 decades in many disease areas, including cardiovascular disease/surgery, diabetes mellitus, mental health, neurologic disorders, cancer, infectious diseases, and rheumatoid arthritis. The features that have made this program advantageous for conducting comparative effectiveness clinical trials are described along with methodological considerations for future trials based on lessons learned from its experience conducting these types of studies. Some of the lessons learned involve managing risk factors, clinical equipoise, patient preferences, evolving technology, the use of usual care as a comparator and pharmaceutical issues related to study drug blinding. These issues are not unique to the VA but can play an important role in enabling valid comparisons between treatments that may have differences in delivery or mechanisms of action and could affect the execution and feasibility of conducting a clinical trial with a comparative effectiveness aim. We also outline some future directions for comparative effectiveness clinical trials.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has the ability to improve health and inform patients, clinicians, and decision makers. However, calls for more devoted efforts with regard to CER have been countered by methodological, resource, and translational challenges related to conducting these studies. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) is a clinical research infrastructure that has contributed much evidence to support clinical practice for several decades. Although the CSP does not exclusively focus on CER, it employs strategies that lend themselves toward the planning and execution of studies that seek to compare interventions and/or strategies for treating disease. Consequently, the CSP provides a model for addressing important scientific, structural, and operational factors for clinical research, including large, national and multinational comparative effectiveness studies. Exploration of the difficulties the CSP has encountered can help to elucidate barriers that face CER. This article discusses factors and approaches for collaboratively developing and conducting definitive studies that produce outcomes aimed at influencing clinical practice, lessons that have resulted from such efforts, and ongoing challenges. Future program directions are also presented to highlight areas of emphasis and implications for CER within the VA and nationally.

Background Effective rehabilitative therapies are needed for patients with long-term deficits after stroke. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 127 patients with moderate-to-severe upper-limb impairment 6 months or more after a stroke, we randomly assigned 49 patients to receive intensive robot-assisted therapy, 50 to receive intensive comparison therapy, and 28 to receive usual care. Therapy consisted of 36 1-hour sessions over a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in motor function, as measured on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery after Stroke, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. Secondary analyses assessed the treatment effect at 36 weeks. Results At 12 weeks, the mean Fugl-Meyer score for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy was better than that for patients receiving usual care (difference, 2.17 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.23 to 4.58) and worse than ...

Deep brain stimulation is an accepted treatment for advanced Parkinson disease (PD), although there are few randomized trials comparing treatments, and most studies exclude older patients.To compare 6-month outcomes for patients with PD who received deep brain stimulation or best medical therapy.Randomized controlled trial of patients who received either deep brain stimulation or best medical therapy, stratified by study site and patient age (70 years vsor = 70 years) at 7 Veterans Affairs and 6 university hospitals between May 2002 and October 2005. A total of 255 patients with PD (Hoehn and Yahr stageor = 2 while not taking medications) were enrolled; 25% were aged 70 years or older. The final 6-month follow-up visit occurred in May 2006.Bilateral deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus (n = 60) or globus pallidus (n = 61). Patients receiving best medical therapy (n = 134) were actively managed by movement disorder neurologists.The primary outcome was time spent in the "on" state (good motor control with unimpeded motor function) without troubling dyskinesia, using motor diaries. Other outcomes included motor function, quality of life, neurocognitive function, and adverse events.Patients who received deep brain stimulation gained a mean of 4.6 h/d of on time without troubling dyskinesia compared with 0 h/d for patients who received best medical therapy (between group mean difference, 4.5 h/d [95% CI, 3.7-5.4 h/d]; P.001). Motor function improved significantly (P.001) with deep brain stimulation vs best medical therapy, such that 71% of deep brain stimulation patients and 32% of best medical therapy patients experienced clinically meaningful motor function improvements (or = 5 points). Compared with the best medical therapy group, the deep brain stimulation group experienced significant improvements in the summary measure of quality of life and on 7 of 8 PD quality-of-life scores (P.001). Neurocognitive testing revealed small decrements in some areas of information processing for patients receiving deep brain stimulation vs best medical therapy. At least 1 serious adverse event occurred in 49 deep brain stimulation patients and 15 best medical therapy patients (P.001), including 39 adverse events related to the surgical procedure and 1 death secondary to cerebral hemorrhage.In this randomized controlled trial of patients with advanced PD, deep brain stimulation was more effective than best medical therapy in improving on time without troubling dyskinesias, motor function, and quality of life at 6 months, but was associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00056563.

INTRODUCTION Advances in robotic technology have led to an important crossroad regarding their applications to physical and rehabilitation medicine. One aspect of this crossroad is healthcare providers' and the general public's continuing eagerness to use "robotics" to enhance clinical and patient care. Body-weight support treadmill systems, bionic neurons (BIONs[TM]), KineAssist[TM], and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)-Manus are visible examples of robots that can help improve many patients' function, mobility, and overall quality of life [1-5]. The other aspect of this crossroad is clinicians' and researchers' recognition that systematically implementing these promising technologies in treatment and rehabilitation regimens requires a greater scientific base of evidence [6-7]. The biomedical, rehabilitation, biomedical engineering, and behavioral sciences continuously add to our understanding of how robotics can be used in rehabilitation. Yet several questions regarding design, man-machine interface, biological/physiological mechanisms, and treatment parameters still remain. Furthermore, more rigorous clinical trials are particularly needed for providing definitive scientific evidence for clinical guidelines [8]. Recent efforts sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Research and Development (ORD) are helping to fill these gaps. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), as the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States, funds a major intramural research program specifically intended to improve veterans' health and healthcare. ORD-sponsored activities range from preclinical research to multisite clinical trials to studies for determining how to best implement research findings. These activities are overseen by four research services: the Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development (R&D) Service, the Clinical Science R&D Service, the Health Services R&D Service, and the Rehabilitation R&D Service. Although certain types of research may better characterize the purview of a particular service, the multidisciplinary nature of key clinical questions requires that these services jointly pursue innovative, comprehensive investigations to advance the VA research mission of total healthcare for veterans. In this guest editorial, we provide an overview of VA robotics-related research and give a specific example of how the VA has bridged its clinical trials expertise with neurorehabilitation experts in a novel trial that uses robots for stroke rehabilitation. We highlight these studies to demonstrate how collaborative clinical research efforts are helping to build the scientific evidence base for the use of robotics in state-of-the-art care for our veterans. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ROBOT-BASED STUDIES VA-supported robot-based investigations aimed at rehabilitative applications primarily stem from the Rehabilitation R&D Service. Several of these efforts are based at seven national Centers of Excellence (COEs) that are dedicated to the development, application, and broad dissemination of emerging technologies that restore and augment impaired function. Engineers and clinician scientists at the Cleveland Functional Electrical Stimulation Center have developed technological solutions to neurological and muscular skeletal impairments. Clinician scientists at the Baltimore VA Medical Center (VAMC) recently established a COE on Task-Oriented Exercise and Robotics in Neurological Diseases to study conditions such as Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis. The Boston COE for Visual Innovation is one of a handful of research teams around the world dedicated to retinal prosthesis development. Preliminary findings show restoration of functional sight in patients who had been blind for more than 40 years. The Pittsburgh COE on Wheelchairs and Associated Technology develops mobility aids and performs associated research necessary for evidence-based practices and prescription guidelines for improving quality of life. …

Workstyle or the behavioral, cognitive, and physiological response that can occur in some individuals to increases in work demands has been proposed to help explain the link between ergonomic and psychosocial factors in the exacerbation of work-related upper extremity symptoms. Currently, there is no measure of this construct, hindering research on its potential link to work related upper extremity problems in the workplace. The present study describes the development and psychometric properties of a measure of workstyle. Questionnaire items reflecting dimensions of workstyle as per the original conceptualization were generated primarily through focus groups with office workers and separate groups held with occupational physicians, physical therapists, occupational health psychologists, and experts in ergonomics, behavioral science, and human factors. Items created through this process were then administered to 282 symptomatic and asymptomatic office workers. Measures of job stress, ergonomic risk, upper extremity symptoms, and functional limitations were also obtained. The workstyle questionnaire was divided into two broad dimensions: Characteristic responses to work and Response to increased work demands. The scale development process as indicated by factor analysis yielded subscales that are theoretically consistent with the workstyle construct. These subscales include: working through pain, social reactivity at work, limited workplace support, deadlines/pressure, self imposed work pace/workload, breaks, mood, pain/tension, autonomic response, and numbness tingling. The internal consistency of these subscales varied from 0.61 to 0.91, n = 282 while the test–retest (3 weeks) reliability for the various subscales ranged from r = 0.68 to 0.89, n = 143. A total workstyle score was computed that excluded the pain/tension and numbness/tingling subscales to avoid circular reasoning in terms of the measure’s relationship to outcomes of pain and functional limitations. The total score was stable over time and provided unique variance in relation to traditional measures of job stress. Total workstyle score was significantly associated with higher levels of pain, and greater functional limitations. Dimensions of the workstyle construct were identified. The workstyle measure possesses acceptable psychometric properties in office workers who work with computers. This measure can be used in future studies on the interaction of psychosocial and ergonomic factors in the exacerbation of upper extremity pain and functional limitation.

While research linking work organization factors to work-related musculoskeletal disorders has been increasing, there is still a need to delineate specific dimensions to be targeted by intervention programs. The present cross-sectional investigation identified work organization risk factors for low back (LB) and upper extremity (UE) symptoms and determined the magnitudes of such associations. Questionnaires containing items on ergonomic, individual psychosocial, and occupational psychosocial factors were administered to a sample of workers (n = 248 U.S. Marines) in previously identified high-risk job categories for musculoskeletal disorders. Study participants were categorized into groups of either having LB symptoms only, UE symptoms only, concurrent LB and UE symptoms, or being asymptomatic on the basis of self-report. Additionally, measures of pain intensity, physical function, and mental health were obtained. Linear regression analyses adjusting for demographics, ergonomic factors, and individual psychosocial factors indicated that decision authority and experienced responsibility for work were significant correlates for pain intensity during the week. Logistic regression analyses indicated that ergonomic stressors were a risk factor for all symptomatic groups (OR = 1.02 per point increase; 95% CI: 1.0–1.1). Time pressure (OR = 1.2 per point increase; 95% CI: 1.0–1.4) was also a significant risk factor for all symptomatic groups, while cognitive processing placed workers at higher risks for concurrent LB and UE symptoms (OR = 1.2; 95% CI: 1.0–1.4). Interpersonal demands placed individuals at a lower risk for LB symptoms (OR = 0.8; 95% CI: 0.5–1.0). Findings highlight the importance of intervention approaches that address time pressure, cognitive processing factors, and interpersonal demands at work. In light of past biobehavioral studies, these results also suggest that job redesign and interventions that address a worker's workstyle when faced with increased work demands may help reduce the likelihood of musculoskeletal symptoms and/or their intensity.

Few empirical data are available that document changes in population-based rates for the evaluation and treatment of nonspecific back pain.To determine the extent of change in the pattern of outpatient evaluation and treatment of nonspecific low back pain in the United States between 1987 and 1997.The 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey and the 1997 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, two nationally representative surveys with similar sampling methods and questions, were used.Noninstitutionalized adults in the United States.Changes in rates of any health service for nonspecific back pain and occurrence of provider-specific care and types of services provided. Changes in the prescription of specific medication classes (ie, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], muscle relaxants, nonnarcotic and narcotic analgesics) were also investigated.Overall rate for outpatient treatment for nonspecific back pain in the US population was relatively stable over the decade (4.48% in 1987, 4.53% in 1997, p=.85). Among those receiving care, the proportion receiving physician care increased from 64% in 1987 to 74% in 1997 (p.001), whereas those obtaining care from physical therapists increased from 5% to 9% during the same time period (p.01). The proportion of respondents receiving NSAIDs, muscle relaxants, nonnarcotic analgesics and narcotic analgesics remained stable. However, the mean number of patient visits in which these medications were prescribed increased from 2.0 to 3.9 over the decade (p.001). The proportion of individuals receiving chiropractic care (p.01) and X- rays (p.001) were lower in 1997 than 1987.The national pattern of health care for nonspecific low back pain observed in the present study serves as a basis for future investigations into the management of this major public health problem. Findings suggest that perhaps a duplication of care is partly responsible for the high degree of health care utilization in this population.

Office work-related upper extremity symptoms and disorders have been associated with static work posture, repetition, and inadequate recovery in the anatomic structures of the neck and upper extremities. Despite these associations there is relatively little research on the development of practical measures of these ergonomic exposures. The present study examines the measurement properties of an upper-extremity specific self-report index of ergonomic exposures. Ninety-two symptomatic office workers completed a web-based questionnaire measuring demographic variables, ergonomic exposures, pain, job stress, and functional limitations. Comparisons of internal consistency, construct validity, and discriminative and predictive abilities were made between the self-report index and an observational exposure assessment checklist. Results indicated that the self-report index had acceptable measurement properties. Furthermore, higher levels of self-reported ergonomic exposures were associated with upper extremity pain, symptom severity, and functional limitations. In contrast, higher levels of observed exposure were only related to lower levels of general physical function. The self-report measure has potential for use in occupational health surveillance programs for office work environments and as an outcome measure of ergonomic exposure in intervention trials. These results also suggest the need for utilizing multiple methods when assessing ergonomic exposures.

ContextSerotonin reuptake-inhibiting (SRI) antidepressants are the only FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).ObjectiveTo determine efficacy of the second-generation antipsychotic risperidone as an adjunct to ongoing pharmacologic and psychosocial treatments for veterans with chronic military-related PTSD.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial conducted between February 2007 and February 2010 at 23 Veterans Administration outpatient medical centers. Of the 367 patients screened, 296 were diagnosed with military-related PTSD and had ongoing symptoms despite at least 2 adequate SRI treatments, and 247 contributed to analysis of the primary outcome measure.InterventionRisperidone (up to 4 mg once daily) or placebo.Main Outcome MeasuresThe Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) (range, 0-136). Other measures included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI), and Veterans RAND 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36V).ResultsChange in CAPS scores from baseline to 24 weeks in the risperidone group was −16.3 (95% CI, −19.7 to −12.9) and in the placebo group, −12.5 (95% CI, −15.7 to −9.4); the mean difference was 3.74 (95% CI, −0.86 to 8.35; t = 1.6; P = .11). Mixed model analysis of all time points also showed no significant difference in CAPS score (risperidone: mean, 64.43; 95% CI, 61.98 to 66.89, vs placebo: mean, 67.16; 95% CI, 64.71 to 69.62; mean difference, 2.73; 95% CI, −0.74 to 6.20; P = .12). Risperidone did not reduce symptoms of depression (MADRS mean difference, 1.19; 95% CI, −0.29 to 2.68; P = .11) or anxiety (HAMA mean difference, 1.16; 95% CI, −0.18 to 2.51; P = .09; patient-rated CGI mean difference, 0.20; 95% CI, −0.06 to 0.45; P = .14; observer-rated CGI mean difference, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.34; P = .04), or increase quality of life (SF-36V physical component mean difference, −1.13, 95% CI, −2.58 to 0.32; P = .13; SF-36V mental component mean difference, −0.26; 95% CI, −2.13 to 1.61; P = .79). Adverse events were more common with risperidone vs placebo, including self-reported weight gain (15.3% vs 2.3%), fatigue (13.7% vs 0.0%), somnolence (9.9% vs 1.5%), and hypersalivation (9.9% vs 0.8%), respectively.ConclusionAmong patients with military-related PTSD with SRI-resistant symptoms, 6-month treatment with risperidone compared with placebo did not reduce PTSD symptoms.Trial Registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00099983

Context Deep brain stimulation is an accepted treatment for advanced Parkinson disease (PD), although there are few randomized trials comparing treatments, and most studies exclude older patients. Objective To compare 6-month outcomes for patients with PD who received deep brain stimulation or best medical therapy. Design, Setting, and Patients Randomized controlled trial of patients who received either deep brain stimulation or best medical therapy, stratified by study site and patient age ( Intervention Bilateral deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus (n = 60) or globus pallidus (n = 61). Patients receiving best medical therapy (n = 134) were actively managed by movement disorder neurologists. Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome was time spent in the “on” state (good motor control with unimpeded motor function) without troubling dyskinesia, using motor diaries. Other outcomes included motor function, quality of life, neurocognitive function, and adverse events. Results Patients who received deep brain stimulation gained a mean of 4.6 h/d of on time without troubling dyskinesia compared with 0 h/d for patients who received best medical therapy (between group mean difference, 4.5 h/d [95% CI, 3.7-5.4 h/d]; P Conclusion In this randomized controlled trial of patients with advanced PD, deep brain stimulation was more effective than best medical therapy in improving on time without troubling dyskinesias, motor function, and quality of life at 6 months, but was associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00056563