Occupational status and self-reported low back pain by gender: a nation-wide cross-sectional study among the general population in Japan.
Cross-sectional studies
Employment status
Epidemiology
Japan
Low back pain
Occupation
Journal
Environmental health and preventive medicine
ISSN: 1347-4715
Titre abrégé: Environ Health Prev Med
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 9609642
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Nov 2021
19 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
28
08
2021
accepted:
03
11
2021
entrez:
20
11
2021
pubmed:
21
11
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We aimed to examine the cross-sectional association between occupational class and self-reported low back pain (LBP) in a representative sample of the Japanese general population. We used anonymized data from a nationwide survey (31,443 men and 35,870 women aged ≥ 20). Occupational class variables included working status, occupation, employment status, and company size (number of employees). Covariates included age, socio-economic status, lifestyle, and comorbidities. Poisson regression models stratified by gender were used to estimate adjusted prevalence ratio (APR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for self-reported LBP. The prevalence of self-reported LBP was 11.7% in men and 14.2% in women. After adjustment for covariates and mutual adjustment for all occupational class variables, among both genders, agricultural/forestry/fishery workers and non-workers had a significantly higher prevalence of self-reported LBP: APR (95% CI) of agricultural/forestry/fishery was 1.36 (1.08-1.70) in men and 1.59 (1.30-1.93) in women; that of non-workers was 1.42 (1.18-1.70) in men and 1.23 (1.08-1.40) in women. Among men, non-regular employees were more likely to have self-reported LBP than regular employees: APR (95% CI) was 1.25 (1.07-1.46) in part-timers and casual staff and 1.18 (1.03-1.35) in other types of non-regular employees. Moreover, compared to men working at companies with ≥ 100 employees, men working at companies with 30-99 employees had a significantly higher prevalence of self-reported LBP (APR 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34). Among women, professionals and technicians (1.26; 1.11-1.43) and sales workers (1.22; 1.04-1.43) had a significantly higher prevalence of self-reported LBP than clerks. Neither employment status nor company size was associated with self-reported LBP in women. After stratified analyses by age group, similar patterns were observed in participants aged 20-64, but not in those aged ≥ 65. Our results suggest that self-reported LBP is highly prevalent among agricultural/forestry/fishery workers and the unemployed, regardless of gender, and that there are also gender differences in the association of occupational class factors with self-reported LBP. It is necessary, therefore, to take preventive measures against LBP based on gender and occupational class factors in Japan.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We aimed to examine the cross-sectional association between occupational class and self-reported low back pain (LBP) in a representative sample of the Japanese general population.
METHODS
METHODS
We used anonymized data from a nationwide survey (31,443 men and 35,870 women aged ≥ 20). Occupational class variables included working status, occupation, employment status, and company size (number of employees). Covariates included age, socio-economic status, lifestyle, and comorbidities. Poisson regression models stratified by gender were used to estimate adjusted prevalence ratio (APR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for self-reported LBP.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The prevalence of self-reported LBP was 11.7% in men and 14.2% in women. After adjustment for covariates and mutual adjustment for all occupational class variables, among both genders, agricultural/forestry/fishery workers and non-workers had a significantly higher prevalence of self-reported LBP: APR (95% CI) of agricultural/forestry/fishery was 1.36 (1.08-1.70) in men and 1.59 (1.30-1.93) in women; that of non-workers was 1.42 (1.18-1.70) in men and 1.23 (1.08-1.40) in women. Among men, non-regular employees were more likely to have self-reported LBP than regular employees: APR (95% CI) was 1.25 (1.07-1.46) in part-timers and casual staff and 1.18 (1.03-1.35) in other types of non-regular employees. Moreover, compared to men working at companies with ≥ 100 employees, men working at companies with 30-99 employees had a significantly higher prevalence of self-reported LBP (APR 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34). Among women, professionals and technicians (1.26; 1.11-1.43) and sales workers (1.22; 1.04-1.43) had a significantly higher prevalence of self-reported LBP than clerks. Neither employment status nor company size was associated with self-reported LBP in women. After stratified analyses by age group, similar patterns were observed in participants aged 20-64, but not in those aged ≥ 65.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that self-reported LBP is highly prevalent among agricultural/forestry/fishery workers and the unemployed, regardless of gender, and that there are also gender differences in the association of occupational class factors with self-reported LBP. It is necessary, therefore, to take preventive measures against LBP based on gender and occupational class factors in Japan.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34798806
doi: 10.1186/s12199-021-01031-2
pii: 10.1186/s12199-021-01031-2
pmc: PMC8603561
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
111Subventions
Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : JP17K09209
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Epidemiol. 2020 Sep 5;30(9):396-403
pubmed: 31353324
Ergonomics. 2018 Sep;61(9):1196-1207
pubmed: 29560812
Pain Physician. 2014 Sep-Oct;17(5):379-91
pubmed: 25247896
J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2020 Dec;10(4):269-275
pubmed: 32959606
J Occup Health. 2019 Sep;61(5):339-348
pubmed: 31004382
Clin J Pain. 2006 Feb;22(2):212-21
pubmed: 16428958
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2016 Sep;39(7):459-472
pubmed: 27568831
Work. 2014;48(2):261-71
pubmed: 23531584
Am J Ind Med. 2005 Dec;48(6):459-69
pubmed: 16299708
Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi. 2021 Jun 25;68(6):433-443
pubmed: 33790096
Stat Med. 2005 Apr 15;24(7):993-1007
pubmed: 15570623
J Occup Health. 2020 Jan;62(1):e12155
pubmed: 32710807
J Nippon Med Sch. 2001 Aug;68(4):310-7
pubmed: 11505278
Prev Med Rep. 2020 Aug 03;20:101171
pubmed: 32904206
Am J Ind Med. 2012 Feb;55(2):143-58
pubmed: 22069159
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2019 Feb;71(2):290-299
pubmed: 30044543
Occup Environ Med. 2011 Jan;68(1):52-7
pubmed: 20876554
Eur J Public Health. 2014 Dec;24(6):924-9
pubmed: 24293504
Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1211-1259
pubmed: 28919117
J Bone Miner Metab. 2014 Sep;32(5):524-32
pubmed: 24213218
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2020 Nov;68(6):327-336
pubmed: 33139128
Harm Reduct J. 2021 Mar 4;18(1):27
pubmed: 33663543
J Agromedicine. 2019 Apr;24(2):167-176
pubmed: 30624156
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Jun;87:84-92
pubmed: 23631782
Int J Health Serv. 2022 Jan;52(1):174-182
pubmed: 34166142
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Aug 2;18(1):334
pubmed: 28768509
Iran J Med Sci. 2016 Nov;41(6):467-478
pubmed: 27853326
J Epidemiol. 2019 Nov 5;29(11):407-413
pubmed: 30298862
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016 Nov;68(11):1688-1694
pubmed: 26991822
Ind Health. 2008 Apr;46(2):112-7
pubmed: 18413963
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Nov 28;20(1):572
pubmed: 31779617
Am J Ind Med. 2019 Sep;62(9):777-782
pubmed: 31270847
J Occup Health. 2021 Jan;63(1):e12261
pubmed: 34375493
J Occup Health. 2010;52(4):227-40
pubmed: 20526043