4 (0.9, 6.4) Kaila-Kangas et al. (2004) Finland Metal industry workers (blue and white collar) Prospective design linked to hospitalisation records 28 years ICD codes for hospitalisation for back disorder ICD codes Karasek Demand Control model—SS and CWS Significant learn more association found for SS No significant association found for CWS RR 3.28 (1.32–8.17) RR 1.08 (0.46–2.54) Karlsson et al. (2010) Sweden Random population

Prospective cohort 2 years selleck chemical Psychosocial factors related to sickness absence Presence of LBP in past 5 years Karasek Demand Control model with general question on support at work – GWS No significant effect for general social support at work and sickness absence due to LBP RR/OR 0.97 (0.088, 1.07) Kerr et al. (2001) Canada Industrial workers Case control Psychosocial factors associated with LBP Biomechanical assessment Karasek Demand Control model—CWS Higher levels of CWS increased risk of LBP OR 1.6 (1.07, 2.32) Krause et selleck screening library al. (1998) USA Transit operators Prospective cohort 5 year study Work-related risk factors of back injury Compensation claims for back injury Karasek Demand Control

model—SS and CWS No significant association found for CWS and spinal injury Non-significant trend reported for lower SS and risk of spinal injury OR 1.00 (0.75, 1.35) OR 1.30 (0.99, 1.72) Larsman and Hanse (2009) Sweden Female human service workers Prospective cohort 18 month study Impact of the Florfenicol demand control model on neck, shoulder and back pain in workers Nordic questionnaire (MSK) Karasek Demand Control model – GWS No significant association found for GWS and back pain OR 1.37 (0.97, 1.92) Leino and Hanninen (1995) Finland General workers sample Prospective cohort 10 year study Psychosocial work factors and back pain Presence of pain symptoms within previous 12 months 6 questions on social relationships at work Significant association found

between lower GWS support at work and greater risk of LBP Beta (0.146), p = 0.001 Lotters and Burdorf (2006) Netherlands Workers registered on an occupational health register Prospective cohort 1 year Prognostic factors of sickness absence due to MSK Consultation registry Nordic and RMDQ Karasek Demand Control model—GWS No significant effect for relation with colleagues and sickness absence in those with LBP HR 1.05 (0.86–1.28) Mielenz et al. (2008) USA General workers sample Prospective 8 week study Work-related psychosocial factors associated with LBP Biomechanical assessment Work APGAR—7 questions on CWS and SS No association between levels of SS and recovery There was an increase in recovery rates for those with higher levels of CWS RR 0.71 (0.34, 1.48) RR 1.55 (1.04, 2.34) Morken et al.