Introduction.The aim of the present study was to determine the closeness of agreement between a self-reported and an objective measure of physical activity in low back pain patients and healthy controls. Beyond, influencing factors on overestimation were identified.Methods.27 low back pain patients and 53 healthy controls wore an accelerometer (objective measure) for seven consecutive days and answered a questionnaire on physical activity (self-report) over the same period of time. Differences between self-reported and objective data were tested by Wilcoxon test. Bland-Altman analysis was conducted for describing the closeness of agreement. Linear regression models were calculated to identify the influence of age, sex, and body mass index on the overestimation by self-report.Results.Participants overestimated self-reported moderate activity in average by 42 min/day (p=0.003) and vigorous activity by 39 min/day (p<0.001). Self-reported sedentary time was underestimated by 122 min/day (p<0.001). No individual-related variables influenced the overestimation of physical activity. Low back pain patients were more likely to underestimate sedentary time compared to healthy controls.Discussion.In rehabilitation and health promotion, the application-oriented measurement of physical activity remains a challenge. The present results contradict other studies that had identified an influence of age, sex, and body mass index on the overestimation of physical activity.

The aim of the present study was to identify the relationship of physical activity (PA) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in patients suffering from low back pain (LBP). The present evaluation was conducted as a cross-sectional study based on baseline data of an randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of an intervention promoting PA. Patients answered a questionnaire on domain specific PA (GPAQ) and HRQoL (EQ-5D-5 L). Furthermore, sociodemographic and indication-specific variables as well as work-related aspects were assessed. Associations of PA and HRQoL were estimated by means of regression analysis: one regression model only included domain specific PA (model 1) and a second regression model additionally included further variables (model 2). 412 patients completed the questionnaire. Model 1 showed opposed effects of workplace and leisure time PA: while workplace PA showed a negative association (β = −0.064; p = 0.04), a positive association of leisure time PA could be proved (β = 0.068; p = 0.01). Model 2 showed that only the variables “current work ability” (β = −0.030; p < 0.01) and “intensity of pain” (β = 0.104; p < 0.01) significantly contributed to explain the variance in HRQoL (model 2). The present results indicate the necessity of a differentiation of workplace and leisure time PA in the context of assessing health-enhancing effects of PA in LBP patients. In the context of HRQoL it must be assumed that the relevance of PA might be overestimated. Further research should be performed on predictors of HRQoL and thereby particular attention should be paid on the patients’ work-related and indication-specific aspects.

Chronic Low Back Pain is a complex syndrome with multifactorial bio-psycho-social etiology and interdependences. Thereby, physical activity seems to play an essential role regarding the prevention and rehabilitation of LBP. In consequence, physical activity and exercise therapy is an integral part of musculoskeletal rehabilitation in LBP. However, adherence to self-directed exercise and implementing a health-enhancing physical activity in daily routine after rehabilitation is a common problem for patients and only a few patients integrate health-enhancing physical activity and/or sport activities in their lifestyle. The present paper describes a comprehensive multilevel approach combining face-to-face intervention, telephone and internet aftercare (Movement Coaching). Aim of the trial presented in this study protocol is to evaluate effectiveness of Movement Coaching compared to a control intervention. The study is a prospective, single-blinded, monocenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) with three measuring points: T1 = start of inpatient rehabilitation; T2 = six months follow-up; T3 = twelve months follow-up. In total, 412 patients were recruited. The intervention involves small-group face-to-face contact during inpatient rehabilitation (two times, week 2 & 3) and telephone aftercare (week 8 & week 12 after rehabilitation) as well as internet-based aftercare (web 2.0 platform; available until six months after rehabilitation). Primary outcome is physical activity, assessed by GPAQ questionnaire. The final data collection is expected by April 2015. Due to the burden of physical inactivity, there is a need to develop, evaluate and disseminate approaches that are effective in promoting physical activity and especially promoting the maintenance of physical activity in relevant target groups. Considering the high prevalence and socioeconomic impact of low back pain and its multifactorial etiology, low back pain patients seem to be a relevant target group for physical activity promotion. A multilevel approach to bridge the interface of (inpatient) rehabilitation and self-directed physical activity will help to target group-specific PA promotion. German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS)-ID: DRKS00004878 .

Background: The German health care system is faced with a serious shortage of nurses. This is associated, amongst other things, with difficult working conditions and work-related health burdens. Workplace health promotion (WHP) is considered a promising approach to promote the health of nurses. The present review aims to give an overview on existing interventions in different nursing settings (acute care hospitals, long-term care (LTC) facilities and home-based long-term care) in Germany. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and PubPsych. Studies were included if published after 2010 and provided data of intervention studies on workplace health promotion among nurses in Germany (RCTs, non-RCTs, non-controlled intervention studies and pilot studies). The setting in which the study was conducted (acute medical care hospital, inpatient LTC facilities, home-based LTC, cross-setting) as well as the health issue assessed (physical health, mental health and/or violence experience) were extracted. The intervention was reported against the background of the quality criteria for prevention measures of the statutory health insurers in Germany. The results of the studies were presented according to the RE-AIM framework. Results: Eleven studies on WHP for nurses were included, whereof seven studies were conducted in acute medical care hospitals and four in LTC facilities. No study reported results on WHP for nurses working in the setting of home-based LTC. Most studies aimed at improving mental health. The intervention contents and forms of implementation were heterogeneous. According to the RE-AIM criteria, the reporting of most studies showed several limitations, especially a lack of reporting on Implementation and Adoption. Most studies showed no statistically significant effect on the respective outcomes (Effectiveness). Four studies reported results on Maintenance indicating a sustained effectiveness. Conclusion: Despite the high relevance for health promotion for nurses, our review showed a striking lack of intervention studies in this field. From this we derive a high need of tailored interventions, taking into account the setting-specific development, implementation of WHP interventions for nurses. With regard to the evaluation, the RE-AIM criteria should be taken more into account in order to meet the requirements of evaluating complex interventions and thus contribute to evidence development of WHP in nursing. In terms of content, the topic of violence prevention and dealing with experiences of violence should also be taken into account. Regarding the settings, the working conditions and health burdens in LTC facilities, home-based LTC and acute medical hospitals must be considered. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021231891

Background: Working in the nursing sector is accompanied by great physical and mental health burdens. Consequently, it is necessary to develop target-oriented, sustainable profession-specific support and health promotion measures for nurses.Objectives: The present review aims to give an overview of existing major health problems and violence experiences of nurses in different settings (acute care hospitals, long-term care facilities, and home-based long-term care) in Germany.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and PubPsych and completed by a manual search upon included studies’ references and health insurance reports. Articles were included if they had been published after 2010 and provided data on health problems or violence experiences of nurses in at least one care setting.Results: A total of 29 studies providing data on nurses health problems and/or violence experience were included. Of these, five studies allowed for direct comparison of nurses in the settings. In addition, 14 studies provided data on nursing working in acute care hospitals, ten on nurses working in long-term care facilities, and four studies on home-based long-term care. The studies either conducted a setting-specific approach or provided subgroup data from setting-unspecific studies. The remaining studies did not allow setting-related differentiation of the results. The available results indicate that mental health problems are the highest for nurses in acute care hospitals. Regarding violence experience, nurses working in long-term care facilities appear to be most frequently affected.Conclusion: The state of research on setting-specific differences of nurses’ health problems and violence experiences is insufficient. Setting-specific data are necessesary to develop target-group specific and feasible interventions to support the nurses’ health and prevention of violence, as well as dealing with violence experiences of nurses.

To assess a comprehensive multicomponent intervention against a low intensity intervention for promoting physical activity in chronic low back pain patients. Randomised controlled trial. Inpatient rehabilitation and aftercare. A total of 412 patients with chronic low back pain. A multicomponent intervention (Movement Coaching) comprising of small group intervention (twice during inpatient rehabilitation), tailored telephone aftercare (twice after rehabilitation) and internet-based aftercare (web 2.0 platform) versus a low level intensity intervention (two general presentations on physical activity, download of the presentations). Physical activity was measured using a questionnaire. Primary outcome was total physical activity; secondary outcomes were setting specific physical activity (transport, workplace, leisure time) and pain. Comparative group differences were evaluated six months after inpatient rehabilitation. At six months follow-up, 92 participants in Movement Coaching (46 %) and 100 participants in the control group (47 %) completed the postal follow-up questionnaire. No significant differences between the two groups could be shown in total physical activity (P = 0.30). In addition to this, workplace (P = 0.53), transport (P = 0.68) and leisure time physical activity (P = 0.21) and pain (P = 0.43) did not differ significantly between the two groups. In both groups, physical activity decreased during the six months follow-up. The multicomponent intervention was no more effective than the low intensity intervention in promoting physical activity at six months follow-up. The decrease in physical activity in both groups is an unexpected outcome of the study and indicates the need for further research.