Systematic review of prognostic studies of acute whiplash. To update the systematic review on the prognosis of acute whiplash published by the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated Disorders and to propose a new conceptual framework to conduct systematic reviews on prognosis. In 1995, the Quebec Task Force published a systematic review of the literature on whiplash and concluded that its prognosis is favorable. However, few prognostic factors were identified. Recent studies have added to this knowledge, and there is a need to update the review conducted by the Quebec Task Force. A bibliographic search of four electronic databases was performed to identify prognostic studies of acute whiplash published after 1995. The literature was appraised with standard review criteria. The consistency of evidence across studies was assessed. A conceptual framework was designed to classify the literature according to methodologic quality, target population, and phases of investigation. Thirteen cohort studies were included in the review. The framework used in this study demonstrates that most of the recent prognostic studies are descriptive in nature. The prognosis of acute whiplash varies according to the population sampled and the insurance/compensation system under which individuals are allowed to claim benefits. Besides age, gender, baseline neck pain intensity, baseline headache intensity, and baseline radicular signs and symptoms, there is little consistency in the literature about the prognostic factors for the recovery of whiplash. Scant knowledge about the prognosis of whiplash has been gained since the release of the Quebec Task Force report. However, it is becoming obvious that the insurance and compensation systems have a large impact on recovery from acute whiplash injuries. The conceptual framework used in this study demonstrates that large cohort studies investigating a wide range of prognostic factors are necessary to improve the understanding of this problem.

OBJECTIVES: This study determined whether the physical and psychosocial demands of work are associated with low back pain. METHODS: A case-control approach was used. Case subjects (n = 137) reported a new episode of low back pain to their employer, a large automobile manufacturing complex. Control subjects were randomly selected from the study base as cases accrued (n = 179) or were matched to cases by exact job (n = 65). Individual, clinical, and psychosocial variables were assessed by interview. Physical demands were assessed with direct workplace measurements of subjects at their usual jobs. The analysis used multiple logistic regression adjusted for individual characteristics. RESULTS: Self-reported risk factors included a physically demanding job, a poor workplace social environment, inconsistency between job and education level, better job satisfaction, and better coworker support. Low job control showed a borderline association. Physical-measure risk factors included peak lumbar shear force, peak load handled, and cumulative lumbar disc compression. Low body mass index and prior low back pain compensation claims were the only significant individual characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified specific physical and psychosocial demands of work as independent risk factors for low back pain.

The observed clustering, and shared underlying determinants, of risk behaviours in young people has led to the proposition that interventions should take a broader approach to risk behaviour prevention. In this review we synthesized the evidence on ‘what works’ to prevent multiple risk behaviour (focusing on tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use and sexual risk behaviour) for policy-makers, practitioners and academics. We aimed to identify promising intervention programmes and to give a narrative overview of the wider influences on risk behaviour, in order to help inform future intervention strategies and policies. The most promising programme approaches for reducing multiple risk behaviour simultaneously address multiple domains of risk and protective factors predictive of risk behaviour. These programmes seek to increase resilience and promote positive parental/family influences and/or healthy school environments supportive of positive social and emotional development. However, wider influences on risk behaviour, such as culture, media and social climate also need to be addressed through broader social policy change. Furthermore, the importance of positive experiences during transition periods of the child–youth–adult phase of the life course should be appropriately addressed within intervention programmes and broader policy change, to reduce marginalization, social exclusion and the vulnerability of young people during transition periods.