ArticleBMC nursing2025
Chronic lower back pain among occupational workers: effect of relaxation technique on quality of working life, pain and disability level with nurse-led intervention.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLower back pain (LBP) is the main cause of workplace impairment and a significant contributor to absenteeism. Implementing relaxation techniques in the workplace can be considered an investment because it can eventually lower the incidence of chronic LBP (chronic lower back pain).
aimThe purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effect of relaxation techniques on the quality of working life, pain and disability level, with nurse-led interventions among occupational workers with chronic lower back pain (CLBP).
methodA quasi-experimental design with a pre- and post-test method was used.
settingThe study took place at a yarn and textile factory in Kafr El-Sheikh City, Kafr El-Sheikh Governorate, Egypt. SAMPLE: A purposive sample of 100 industrial workers with persistent LBP was chosen. The participants were matched and sorted into two equal groups: the study group and the control group. INSTRUMENTS: The study used a structured interview questionnaire, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Quality of Working Life Scale (QWL), and the Oswestry Disability Index.
resultsParticipants' average age was 41.4 ± 8.7 years in the study group and 40.5 ± 7.8 years in the control group. Following the relaxation technique intervention, the study group's pain intensity, frequency, and duration were significantly lower than in the control group. Following the intervention, the study group's overall quality of working life improved statistically significantly, with the mean score rising from 72% in the pretest to 93.3% in the post-test. The research group's daily activities and the overall quality of working life improved dramatically when compared to the control group. Furthermore, after the intervention, the study group's disability levels decreased significantly, with only 46% having a disability compared to 86% before the intervention.
conclusionsThe implementation of relaxation techniques greatly improved the quality of working life in the study group when compared to the control group. There was a notable and statistically significant difference in pain intensity between the study group and the controls. Following the intervention, industrial workers' daily living activities improved, despite persistent LBP. RECOMMENDATION: Health education and awareness programs should be conducted to improve the quality of life for industrial workers with LBP. Additionally, occupational health nurses' roles in the early detection and referral of LBP patients in diverse industrial settings should be strengthened.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.