Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Nursing Open logoLink to Nursing Open
. 2020 Dec 15;8(3):1220–1231. doi: 10.1002/nop2.738

The effectiveness of social media and in‐person interventions for low back pain conditions in nursing personnel (SMILE)

Seyedeh‐Somayeh Kazemi 1, Sedigheh‐Sadat Tavafian 1,✉, Claire E Hiller 2, Alireza Hidarnia 1, Ali Montazeri 3,4,✉
PMCID: PMC8046039  PMID: 33905171

Abstract

Aim

To compare two educational approaches to reduce low back pain in nurses.

Design

A community randomized controlled clinical trial.

Methods

Data were collected with two interventions and a control arm between August 2018 and January 2019. Participants were recruited from three hospitals. Hospital 1 received an in‐person educational programme, Hospital 2 received via the website and Hospital 3 received nothing. Statistical analysis was carried out with a follow‐up of 3 and 6 months.

Results

A total of 180 female nurses with low back pain participated in the study. Dimensions of the quality of life improved over 3 and 6 months, pain and disability decreased over 3 months in both intervention groups and over 6 months in the social media group.

Conclusion

Two educational approaches can be effective in decreasing pain, disability and improving quality of life. However, the findings suggest that the social media approach was more successful over the long‐term and might be a better way to present the programme.

Keywords: disability, in‐person, nurse, occupational low back pain, quality of life, social media

1. INTRODUCTION

Low back pain is associated with a lower health‐related quality of life (Ludwig et al., 2018) increased functional disability (Kovacs et al., 2011) and increased time off work (Ferguson et al., 2019). It is the leading cause of activity limitation and work absence worldwide, imposing a high economic burden on individuals, families, communities and governments (Chhabra et al., 2018). So, its prevention is a priority (del Pozo‐Cruz et al., 2012). Low back pain is the most common work‐related health problem and its prevalence is high among nursing personnel (Yassi & Lockhart, 2013). Various studies investigated the effectiveness of different educational interventions on reducing low back pain in nurses (Parreira et al., 2017; Toelle et al., 2019; Van Der Beek et al., 2017). Using an educational method depends on the target group. A particular education method can be appropriate and efficient when it is related to the characteristics of the learner and the type of learning (Flunger et al., 2017; Westwood, 2008). There are different strategies that have been employed to implement professional development through educational programmes using electronic (mobile, message and website) and in‐person (lectures and role‐playing) education methods.

1.1. Background

According to the World Health Organization, low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide with a global prevalence of 7.2% (Vos et al., 2017). In Europe and the United States, LBP is the most frequently occurring occupational health problem (Hasegawa et al., 2018). Occupational LBP results in considerable medical expenses (Lambeek et al., 2011; Lin et al., 2012), work absenteeism (Kamper et al., 2015) and the loss of work salary (Lin et al., 2012).

As LBP is the most common work‐related health problem, unsurprisingly there is a high prevalence among healthcare employees, especially nurses (Hignett, 1996; June & Cho, 2011; Yassi & Lockhart, 2013). The overall prevalence of LBP among nurses ranges from 35%–80% (Járomi et al., 2018; Pakbaz et al., 2019; Parreira et al., 2017; Soroush et al., 2018; Van Hoof et al., 2018). The prevalence of LBP in Iranian nurses was reported to be 64.8% (Mohammadi et al., 2019).

There are several risk factors for developing low back pain including lifestyle (Shiri et al., 2019) and occupational risk factors (Fingerhut et al., 2006; Schaafsma et al., 2015). Therefore, design and implementation of occupational health education programmes such as work‐related low back pain educational interventions may play an important role in primary and secondary prevention. Various studies investigated the effectiveness of different educational interventions on reducing work‐related musculoskeletal disorders such as low back pain (Parreira et al., 2017; Van Der Beek et al., 2017) especially in nurses (Salah et al., 2012; Smedley et al., 2003; Toelle et al., 2019). Studies have shown educational programmes are effective in reducing musculoskeletal and low back pain in nurses such as in Iranian nurses (Pakbaz et al., 2019; Serra et al., 2019).

There are barriers that limit nurses' participation in education. For instance, time constraints, lack of classrooms in hospitals, several job commitments and the costs for the educator (Kazemi et al., 2019). The use of social media interventions may be able to overcome these limitations. Given the increase in the use of technologies to enhance health services (Irvine et al., 2015), social media has emerged as a potential alternative to implement interventions for LBP (Dario et al., 2017; Garg et al., 2016). Social media interventions have become increasingly popular in public health and several studies showed that they were a promising platform for promoting healthy behaviours, especially when they were theory‐based (Garg et al., 2016; Jahangiry et al., 2015; Karlsen et al., 2016).

The aim of this study was to compare an educational intervention based on the PRECEDE‐PROCEED model to reduce occupational low back pain in nurses using in‐person and social media approaches, with a no‐intervention control. Indeed, the in‐person group is being compared with the social media group and each one compared with the control group. The selection of this model however was due to the fact that the PRECEDE‐PROCEED model has a good potential to design, implement and evaluate public health interventions. This model includes a range of behavioural and environmental factors that are integrated into each other and could provide a full picture of requirements that are needed to improve health (Freire & Runyan, 2006; Gielen et al., 2008; Glanz et al., 2015; Green & Kreuter, 1991). Its use leads to planning interventions that are specifically targeted to these desired outcomes. This model can determine the causes of performing or not performing health behaviours. As well, the PRECEDE‐PROCEED model determines the reinforcing and enabling factors in performing and maintaining health behaviour (Glanz et al., 2015). Indeed, according to the PRECEDE‐PROCEED model, three categories of factors change behaviour: predisposing factors, reinforcing factors and enabling factors (Green, 2005). Each of these factors will have different effects on behaviour, but a combination of these is needed to change behaviour (Green, 2005). In other words, factors that affect participation in health‐promoting behaviours include those that are internal or intrinsic to the individual and those that are environmental or extrinsic (Pender, 2011; Seifert et al., 2012). Intrinsic factors that influence whether one engages in health‐promoting activities include personal characteristics, knowledge, attitude, value and self‐efficacy. Extrinsic factors include situational and interpersonal influences, reinforcing factors such as social relationship, reward and satisfaction from adopting the behaviour, enabling factors such as managers’ support, existence and use of resources (Green, 2005).

2. THE STUDY

2.1. Design

This community randomized controlled trial was conducted between August 2018 and January 2019 when three eligible and consenting selected hospitals were randomly allocated by the roll of a dice to two intervention settings and one control setting. The intervention settings received the educational programme while the control setting received nothing. Participants were assessed at three points in time: baseline, three and six months after the intervention or control period.

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Study setting and procedure

The study was conducted in hospitals of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran where the prevalence of LBP among nurses is over 50% (Mohseni‐Bandpei et al., 2006). The selection of the participating hospitals was by random allocation. The name of eligible hospitals (N = 6) was written on individual cards and placed in a box. The box was shaken, and three cards were selected. The selected hospitals were then allocated to intervention and control settings based on the roll of a dice. To ensure allocation concealment, randomization to groups was undertaken by a blinded remote investigator not involved in recruitment. First, the training programme was announced through bulletin boards in hospitals. Nurses who wished to participate were registered in the nursing office by the educational supervisor. Then, each hospital sent a list of ID' registered nurses to the study coordinator. The coordinator re‐coded the IDs to number 1‐300. A random number table using these numbers was generated. The coordinator contacted the nurses in order of the random table and then assessed them for eligibility and consent. This process continued until the sample size of 60 in each group was reached.

2.2.2. Sample/participants

The participants were nurses working in the three hospitals. All participants signed written informed consent.

2.2.3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Participants with low back pain were identified using an interview by the main investigator and examined by a specialist (physician) in occupational medicine. Inclusion criteria were: having current work‐related low back pain* (6–12 weeks or more than 12 weeks), having access and skill to use a mobile phone and Internet. Exclusion criteria included: having an illness or problems that prevented participation in the study, being pregnant, having pathological low back pain**, taking a prescription medication for low back pain.

* The meaning of work‐related low back pain is related to poor ergonomics like prolonged awkward posture, repetitive bending, prolonged sitting, physical or psychological stress in the workplace.

** Pathological low back pain such as radicular pain, facet joint pain, sacroiliac pain, pain related to lumbar stenosis, discogenic pain.

2.2.4. Data collection

Demographic information was collected via a questionnaire. The pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), disability with The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) and Quality of Life with the SF‐36. The questionnaires were completed by nurses at 3‐time points; before intervention, 3 months and 6 months after intervention. Figure 1 shows the CONSORT statement and the extension for randomized trials were used to describe the design of the study (Altman et al., 2001; Schulz et al., 2010). The study protocol was published elsewhere (Solhi et al., 2014).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart and overview of the trial

2.2.5. Educational intervention

An educational intervention was developed based on the PRECEDE‐PROCEED model. The final programme consisted of: ergonomic and correct position of the spine in daily work, stretching exercises to increase flexibility, strengthening exercises to increase muscle strength and the effect LBP on quality of life. The education implementation time was set with the coordination of the nursing manager and educational supervisor at each hospital.

2.2.6. Implementation of intervention

Participants in the intervention hospital 1, received the in‐person education content. At the first session and before the education intervention, participants completed the demographic, VAS, QBPDS and SF‐36 questionnaires. Participants received the education content in two sessions of 60 min, which included group discussions, role‐playing, question/answer and lectures. At the first session, the education content included: education about spine health and ergonomic training. In the second session, content included: exercises for back pain such as flexibility and strengthening exercises and the effect of LBP on quality of life. A reminder text message was sent to this group every week via mobile phone for non‐verbal encouragement.

Participants in intervention hospital 2 (interactive social media group), received educational content by website. Social media was designed in social media format and mobile app. Before the intervention implementation, a meeting was set up for participants and devoted to how to access the social media and educational content and to complete the questionnaires.

The content of the education was uploaded to the site on two days and at a specified time, like the in‐person intervention. Every week a reminder message was sent through the social media to encourage the participants to use the social media or app and ask if they have any questions or have difficulty in understanding the content. They were also encouraged to continue the exercises (flexibility and strengthening exercises).

2.2.7. Outcome assessment

The primary outcome was the reduction of low back pain. The secondary outcomes were the reduction of disability and improvement of quality of life.

2.2.8. Validity and reliability

The primary and secondary outcomes measures were collected using the following instruments.

Low back pain assessed by the VAS. The VAS is a well‐known measure of pain intensity (McCormack et al., 1988), which has been widely used in different adult populations (Hawker et al., 2011). It is a continuous scale comprised, usually 10 centimetres (100 mm) in length, anchored by two verbal descriptors ranging from none (score of 0) to worse condition (score of 100) (Hawker et al., 2011; Jensen et al., 1986). In this study, we used a 100 mm straight line to assess pain intensity using the usual anchors. Disability and quality of life assessed by the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) and the Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36) questionnaires respectively.

The QBPDS is a 20‐item instrument designed to assess the level of functional disability in individuals with back pain. Each item is rated on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 0–5 giving a total score of 20 to 100. Higher scores indicate greater disability (Kopec et al., 1995). The validity and reliability of the Iranian version of the questionnaire were reported elsewhere (Mousavi et al., 2006). The SF‐36 is a very popular generic measure of health and health‐related quality of life (Ware & Sherbourne, 1992) and consists of 36 items tapping into eight sub‐scales: physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, social functioning, vitality, role emotional and mental health. Each subscale could take a score ranging from 0–100. A higher score represents a better condition. The questionnaire has been validated in Iran (Montazeri et al., 2005).

2.3. Data analyses

Continuous data were expressed as means (standard deviations). A Shapiro–Wilk test with skewness‐kurtosis was used to test the normal distribution of values. One‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare groups at baseline. When normally distributed, continuous variables were tested with mixed between‐within subject analysis of variance (Bonferroni adjustments). Also, repeated measures analysis was used to compare each group at three point assessments. For non‐normal distributions, alternative non‐parametric tests were used. Additionally, Pearson‐correlation was used to determine the relationship between low back pain and disability. All data were analysed with SPSS IBM Statistics version 23.

2.4. Ethical considerations

The Ethics Committee approval was obtained from Tarbiat Modares University (IR. TUM. REC 2017/545).

3. RESULTS

3.1. Participants and descriptive data

The participants were 180 female nurses (mean age of 36.66 (6.51) years, mean height of 162.19 (6.62) cm, mean weight of 66.31 (10.22) kg and mean BMI 25.12 (3.01)). Demographic data of the sample is provided in Table 1. There were no significant differences between the three groups at baseline (p > .05) (Table 2). Tables 3, 4 and 5 display evaluation of the educational intervention on pain, disability and quality of life over the 3‐ and 6‐month follow‐up in three groups.

Table 1.

The demographic description of the participants

In‐person

(N = 60)

Social media

(N = 60)

Control

(N = 60)
Age mean (SD) 36 (5.84) 37 (5.74) 36.98 (7.80)
Height mean (SD) 161.77 (6.64) 162.10 (6.77) 162.70 (6.55)
Weight mean (SD) 65.92  (11.70) 66.25 (11.70) 66.77 (6.54)
BMI mean (SD) 25.09 (3.36) 25.07 (3.09) 25.20 (3.01)
Work experience mean (SD) 12.08 (5.91) 12.23 (5.00) 12.68 (7.46)
Work hours mean (SD) 48.45 (8.14) 49.90 (19.38) 49.05 (10.59)
Education level (%)
Associate 2 (3.3) 1 (1.7) 0
Bachelor 51 (85) 53 (88.3) 49 (81.7)
Master 7 (11.7) 6 (10) 11 (18.3)
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Pain, disability and quality of life scores for the in‐person, social media intervention and control group at baseline (Mean [SD])

In‐person Social media Control p
Pain (VAS) 5.55 (2.33) 5.56 (2.02) 5.53 (2.06) .99
Disability (Quebec) 30.53 (10.17) 31.87 (12.95) 31.05 (14.56) .84
Quality of life (SF−36)
Physical Functioning 59.75 (19.05) 59.83 (19.97) 58.08 (23.39) .87
Role Physical 57.50 (18.58) 57.08 (19.02) 57.50 (36.03) .99
Bodily Pain 45.93 (13.01) 45 (12.51) 46.30 (14.77) .86
General Health 46.25 (12.40) 46.42 (10.41) 47 (11.76) .93
Vitality 52.50 (14.15) 52.25 (15.47) 52.83 (17.85) .98
Social Functioning 56.04 (13.51) 55.63 (12.48) 55 (14.59) .91
Role Emotional 51.11 (30.35) 51.67 (24.87) 50.56 (33.88) .98
Mental Health 56.67 (16.60) 57 (15.45) 56.27 (17.75) .97
Open in a new tab
a

Derived from one‐way between‐groups ANOVA.

Table 3.

Visual Analog Scale scores for the in‐person, social media intervention and control group across the three time periods

Baseline 3‐month follow‐up 6‐month follow‐up p a CI
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
In‐person 5.55 (2.33) 4.60 (1.19) 4.62 (1.65) .01 4.6–5.2
Social media 5.56 (2.02) 3.54 (1.57) 3.37 (1.79) <.0001 3.8–4.4
Control 5.53 (2.06) 5.54 (1.75) 5.62 (1.67) .77 5.2–5.8
p b .99 <.0001 <.0001
Open in a new tab
a

Derived from one‐way repeated measures ANOVA

b

Derived from one‐way between‐groups ANOVA.

Table 4.

Disability scores for the in‐person, social media intervention and control group across the three time periods

Baseline 3‐month follow‐up 6‐month follow‐up p a CI
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
In‐person 30.53 (10.17) 23.30 (14.03) 23.35 (11.21) <.0001 23.5–27.9
Social media 31.87 (12.95) 23.03 (12.67) 19.38 (13.60) <.0001 22.5–26.9
Control 31.05 (14.56) 31.58 (13. 17) 31.17 (14.52) .02 29–33.4
p b .84 .001 <.0001
Open in a new tab
a

Derived from one‐way repeated measures ANOVA

b

Derived from one‐way between‐groups ANOVA.

Table 5.

Quality of life (SF‐36) scores for the in‐person, social media intervention and control group across the three time periods (Mean [SD])

In‐person Social media Control group
Baseline 3 month 6 month Baseline 3 month 6 month Baseline 3 month 6 month
Physical Functioning 59.75 (19.05) 65 (20.23) 65.75 (14.92) 59.83 (19.97) 64.58 (19.36) 69.58 (17.1) 58.08 (23.39) 57.5 (23.17) 58.5 (23.85)
Role Physical 57.5 (18.58) 67.92 (30.56) 67.5 (16.78) 57.08 (19.02) 68.33 (27.56) 69.58 (18.46) 57.50 (36.03) 56.67 (38.74) 57.08 (37.42)
Bodily Pain 45.93 (13.01) 51.58 (10.36) 53.89 (9.77) 45 (12.51) 54.07 (11.65) 60.56 (10.71) 46.30 (14.77) 47.22 (17.90) 46.48 (17.53)
General Health 46.25 (12.4) 50.42 (15.52) 51.33 (11.99) 46.42 (10.41) 51.58 (14.42) 59.42 (14.32) 47 (11.76) 46.67 (19.67) 45.58 (13.75)
Vitality 52.5 (14.15) 57.75 (16.65) 63.67 (15.42) 52.25 (15.47) 57.58 (16.65) 66.50 (13.84) 52.83 (17.85) 52.25 (17.64) 53.08 (18.01)
Social Functioning 56.04 (13.51) 61.04 (17.08) 62.71 (13.51) 55.63 (12.48) 62.71 (16.67) 68.54 (12.06) 55 (14.59) 53.54 (15.28) 55.83 (20.9)
Role Emotional 51.11 (30.35) 55 (27.32) 55.56 (24.29) 51.67 (24.87) 58.33 (25.76) 60 (26.61) 50.56 (33.88) 51.67 (32.72) 50 (32.18)
Mental Health 56.67 (16.6) 60.8 (16.39) 63.27 (15.99) 57 (15.45) 62.93 (17.50) 66.27 (15.76) 56.27 (17.75) 56.53 (17.62) 56.47 (17.89)
Open in a new tab

3.2. Main results

We used mixed between‐within analysis to compare between the three groups across the three time periods. The data in pain and disability were not normally distributed, so we calculated change scores which were normally distributed. The results of the mixed between‐within analysis for pain change scores showed there was a significant difference between the two intervention groups and the control group. Pain change scores decreased at 3 months in both intervention groups and at 6 months in the social media group compared with controls (p<.0001, η = 0.10) (Table 6). Disability change scores significantly decreased compared with the control group, at 3 months in both intervention groups and at 6 months in the social media group (Table 7) while the control group did not change (p<.0001, η = 0.11).

Table 6.

The difference in mean scores of VAS for the in‐person, social media intervention and control group across the three time periods (Mean [SD])

Change score between 3‐month follow‐up and baseline Change score between 6‐month follow‐up and 3‐month follow‐up p a η
In‐person −0.95 (2.45) 0.02 (1.96) <.0001 .10
Social media −2.02 (2.58) −0.17 (2.28)
Control 0.01 (2.62) 0.11 (1.22)
Open in a new tab
a

Derived from mixed between‐within subject analysis of variance (Bonferroni adjustments).

Table 7.

The difference in mean scores of disability for the in‐person, social media intervention and control group across the three time periods (Mean [SD])

Change score between 3‐month follow‐up and baseline Change score between 6‐month follow‐up and 3‐month follow‐up p a η
In‐person −7.23 (14.17) 0.05 (16.59) <.0001 .11
Social media −8.83 (17.21) −3.65 (17.83)
Control 0.53 (20.98) −0.41 (20.97)
Open in a new tab
a

Derived from mixed between‐within subject analysis of variance (Bonferroni adjustments).

The distribution of three dimensions of quality of life (physical functioning, vitality and mental health) was normal. The results of the mixed between‐within analysis for 3‐dimensions showed there was a significant difference between groups. Physical functioning (p = .03), vitality (p = .005) and mental health (p = .03) improved at 3 and 6 months in both intervention groups (Table 8) compared with the control group. The other four quality of life dimensions’ distributions were not normal even when change scores were calculated, so two‐sample tests were performed using the Mann–Whitney U test.

Table 8.

Physical functioning, vitality and mental health scores for the in‐person, social media intervention and control group across the three time periods [Mean (SD)]

In‐Person Social Media Control p a η
Baseline 3month 6month Baseline 3month 6month Baseline 3month 6month
Physical functioning 59.75 (19.05) 65 (20.23) 65.75 (14.92) 59.83 (19.97) 64.58 (19.36) 69.58 (17.10) 58.08 (23.39) 57.50 (23.17) 58.50 (23.85) .03 0.04
Vitality 52.50 (14.15) 57.75 (16.65) 63.67 (15.42) 52.25 (15.47) 57.58 (16.65) 66.50 (13.84) 52.83 (17.85) 52.25 (17.64) 53.08 (18.01) .005 0.06
Mental health 56.67 (16.60) 60.80 (16.39) 63.27 (15.99) 57 (15.45) 62.93 (17.50) 66.27 (15.76) 56.27 (17.75) 56.53 (17.62) 56.47 (17.89) .03 0.04
Open in a new tab
a

Derived from mixed between‐within subject analysis of variance (Bonferroni adjustments).

Other dimensions also improved over 3 and 6 month in both intervention groups (Table 9). While the control group did not change. Based on Bonferroni post hoc analysis there was a difference between the intervention types. Indeed, social media intervention was more successful in decreasing pain and disability (p < .0001) and improving some dimensions of quality of life such as physical functioning (p = .03, η = 0.04), vitality (p = .005, η = 0.06), mental health (p = .03, η = 0.06) and bodily pain (p < .05).

Table 9.

Change scores for the in‐person, social media intervention and control group across the three time periods (Mean [SD])

Month 3‐ baseline Month 6‐ month 3
In‐person Social media Control In‐person Social media Control
Role physical 10.41 (33.6)*b 11.25 (31.02)*c −0.83 (26.02) −0.41 (32.70) 1.25 (28.9) 0.41 (33.02)
Bodily pain 5.92 (17.05) 9.07 (17.89)*c 0.92 (19.75) 2.03 (8.30)*b 6.48 (9.87)*acd −0.74 (2.79)
General health 4.16 (20.83) 5.16 (18.63) −0.33 (16.36) 0.91 (21.34) 7.83 (20.87)*c −1.08 (20.81)
Social functioning 5 (22.09)*b 7.08 (21.38)*c −1.45 (6.12) 1.66 (12.06) 5.83 (18.33) 2.29 (26.18)
Role emotional 3.88 (12.41) 6.67 (13.44)*c 1.11 (6.03) 0.55 (14.38) 1.66 (11.35)*c −1.67 (7.32)
Open in a new tab

Based on Mann–Whitney U test.

*a

p‐value < .05; In‐person: Social media

*b

p‐value < .05; In‐person: Control

*c

p‐value < .05; Social media: Control

*d

p‐value for multiple comparisons < 0.002; Social media: Control.

4. DISCUSSION

The two intervention approaches were successful in reducing pain and disability and improving quality of life in nurses with low back pain. But the social media intervention was more successful than the in‐person intervention. social media use is increasing in public health and health promotion because it can remove traditional access barriers (Welch et al., 2016). Evidence from systematic reviews suggests that social media facilitates interaction with other users and effectively improves knowledge, health behaviours and outcomes (Dario et al., 2017; Garg et al., 2016; Moorhead et al., 2013).

The reduction in low back pain is supported by results of other studies (Hurley et al., 2019; Nevedal et al., 2013; Rutledge et al., 2018; Smedley et al., 2003). For instance, Pakbaz et al. (2019) investigated the effectiveness of a face‐to‐face intervention (back school programme) on low back pain and functional disability in Iranian nurses and found that the programme reduced LBP and functional disability over a 2‐month period (Pakbaz et al., 2019). Chen et al. (2014) reported that stretching exercises delivered in‐person, resulted in significantly lower pain scores (VAS) at two, four and six‐month follow‐up compared with the control group in nurses with low back pain (Chen et al., 2014).

Toelle et al. (2019) investigated the clinical effects of a multidisciplinary mHealth back pain App (Kaia App) in a randomized controlled trial. They found that the Kaia App was an effective treatment in LBP patients over 3 months and was superior to physiotherapy in combination with online education (Toelle et al., 2019). Another study determined that an interactive self‐management social media for people with chronic back pain lead to improvements in pain (Chiauzzi et al., 2010). Irvine et al., (2015) demonstrated that a theoretically based stand‐alone mobile‐web intervention was an effective measure in self‐management of low back pain and improving the quality of life. The results indicated greater improvement of self‐manage low back pain in users of the Mobile‐Web Application program (FitBack) compared with another two groups receiving materials via e‐mail or receiving nothing (Irvine et al., 2015).

The two educational delivery methods were successful in reducing low back pain and disability over 3 months and the social media group was successful over 6 months. Various studies have demonstrated that different interventions could reduce back pain and disability (Baez et al., 2018; Garcia et al., 2011; Sezgin & Esin, 2018). Rasmussen et al. (2015) study showed in‐person educational intervention is beneficial for the treatment of patients with chronic non‐specific low back pain (Rasmussen et al., 2015). Likewise, O’Brien et al. (2018) in a systematic review indicated that compared with usual care, telephone‐based interventions were more effective in reducing low back pain and disability. However, the same review reported that telephone‐based intervention plus face‐to‐face intervention were no more effective than face‐to‐face interventions or usual care only (O’Brien et al., 2018).

We found that social media intervention was more successful than the in‐person intervention for decreasing low back pain and disability over the 6‐month follow‐up. This result is supported by Del Pozo‐Cruz et al. (2012) study who found that a 9‐month web‐based intervention decreased low back pain and disability among office workers with a history of non‐specific low back pain (Del Pozo‐Cruz et al., 2012). Krein et al. (2013) found that an Internet‐mediated intervention had a greater decrease in back pain‐related disability in the 6 months compared with those received usual care (Krein et al., 2013).

The educational intervention approaches were effective in improving the quality of life among nurses who suffer from lower back pain. It seems in our study the effects of social media intervention were more successfully than the in‐person intervention for the long‐term in improving the quality of life. While the in‐person intervention had a positive effect on outcomes over the 3‐month follow‐up, but in the long‐run, its effect diminished. Social media was more effective and successful in physical functioning, vitality, mental health and bodily pain at the 6‐month follow‐up. Other studies have shown the positive impact of educational interventions, especially web‐based interventions, on improving the quality of life of people with pain and LBP (Agboola et al., 2015; Galiano‐Castillo et al., 2016). Del Pozo‐Cruz et al. (2012) study showed that the intervention group (Web‐Based Intervention) improved function and health‐related quality of life at the 9‐month follow‐up compared with the control group (Del Pozo‐Cruz et al., 2012).

4.1. Limitations

One limitation was that only female nurses were included in the study, so future work should investigate whether the same effect is found in male nurses. Also, although the participants were blinded to the group assignment, it might be possible that participants identified another intervention group due to work relationships.

5. CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that social media approach was more successful than the in‐person intervention over the long‐term and might be a better way to present a programme due to its ease of access and decreased implementation costs. The educational programme is a guideline for individuals and can lead to reducing low back pain. Suitable educational methods can be a reinforcing factor for individuals and the workforce. Also, the choice of the educational method according to the conditions and policies of the workplace is also important. The global impression of change in pain and function study is suggested in future studies.

CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS

No conflict of interest has been declared by the authors.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

SSK was the main investigator, collected and analysed the data, and wrote the first draft. SST supervised the study and contributed to the writing process. CH contributed to drafting, editing and interpretation of data. AH helped in the design and contributed to the writing process. AM was the study advisor, contributed to analysis and interpretation, and provided the final draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper was originated from the first investigator's Ph.D. thesis at the Department of Health Education and Promotion, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. The authors thank the nurses and staff of hospitals of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. In particular nurses, head nurses, educational supervisors, nursing managers, hospital managers, hospital affairs experts, quality improvement experts and development‐support managers.

Kazemi S‐S, Tavafian S‐S, Hiller CE, Hidarnia A, Montazeri A. The effectiveness of social media and in‐person interventions for low back pain conditions in nursing personnel (SMILE). Nurs Open.2021;8:1220–1231. 10.1002/nop2.738

Trial registration number: IRCT20170313033054N2

Contributor Information

Sedigheh‐Sadat Tavafian, Email: tavafian@modares.ac.ir.

Ali Montazeri, Email: montazeri@acecr.ac.ir.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data will be available from the corresponding author on request.

REFERENCES

  1. Agboola, S. O. , Ju, W. , Elfiky, A. , Kvedar, J. C. , & Jethwani, K. (2015). The effect of technology‐based interventions on pain, depression and quality of life in patients with cancer: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(3), e65. 10.2196/jmir.4009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Altman, D. G. , Schulz, K. F. , Moher, D. , Egger, M. , Davidoff, F. , Elbourne, D. , & Lang, T. (2001). The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 134(8), 663–694. 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baez, S. , Hoch, M. C. , & Hoch, J. M. (2018). Evaluation of cognitive behavioral interventions and psychoeducation implemented by rehabilitation specialists to treat fear‐avoidance beliefs in patients with low back pain: A systematic review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 99(11), 2287–2298. 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen, H. M. , Wang, H. H. , Chen, C. H. , & Hu, H. M. (2014). Effectiveness of a stretching exercise program on low back pain and exercise self‐efficacy among nurses in Taiwan: A randomized clinical trial. Pain Management Nursing, 15(1), 283–291. 10.1016/j.pmn.2012.10.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chhabra, H. S. , Sharma, S. , & Verma, S. (2018). Smartphone app in self‐management of chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial. European Spine Journal, 27(11), 2862–2874. 10.1007/s00586-018-5788-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chiauzzi, E. , Pujol, L. A. , Wood, M. , Bond, K. , Black, R. , Yiu, E. , & Zacharoff, K. (2010). painACTION‐back pain: A self‐management website for people with chronic back pain. Pain Medicine, 11(7), 1044–1058. 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.00879.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dario, A. B. , Moreti Cabral, A. , Almeida, L. , Ferreira, M. L. , Refshauge, K. , Simic, M. , Pappas, E. , & Ferreira, P. H. (2017). Effectiveness of telehealth‐based interventions in the management of non‐specific low back pain: A systematic review with meta‐analysis. The Spine Journal, 17(9), 1342–1351. 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Del Pozo‐Cruz, B. , Adsuar, J. C. , Parraca, J. , del Pozo‐Cruz, J. , Moreno, A. , & Gusi, N. (2012). A web‐based intervention to improve and prevent low back pain among office workers: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 42(10), 831‐D6. 10.2519/jospt.2012.3980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ferguson, S. A. , Merryweather, A. , Thiese, M. S. , Hegmann, K. T. , Lu, M. L. , Kapellusch, J. M. , & Marras, W. S. (2019). Prevalence of low back pain, seeking medical care and lost time due to low back pain among manual material handling workers in the United States. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 20(1), 1–8. 10.1186/s12891-019-2594-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fingerhut, M. A. R. I. L. Y. N. , Nelson, D. I. , Driscoll, T. , Concha‐Barrientos, M. A. R. I. S. O. L. , Steenland, K. Y. L. E. , Punnett, L. A. U. R. A. , & Takala, J. (2006). The contribution of occupational risks to the global burden of disease: Summary and next steps. La Medicina del lavoro, 97(2), 313–321. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Flunger, B. , Trautwein, U. , Nagengast, B. , Lüdtke, O. , Niggli, A. , & Schnyder, I. (2017). A person‐centered approach to homework behavior: Students’ characteristics predict their homework learning type. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 1–15. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.07.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Freire, K. , & Runyan, C. W. (2006). Planning models: PRECEDE/PROCEED and Haddon Matrix. In Gielen A. C. Sleet D. DiClemente R. J., Injury prevention: Behavior change theories, methods and applications, San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass. [Google Scholar]
  13. Galiano‐Castillo, N. , Cantarero‐Villanueva, I. , Fernández‐Lao, C. , Ariza‐García, A. , Díaz‐Rodríguez, L. , Del‐Moral‐Ávila, R. , & Arroyo‐Morales, M. (2016). Telehealth system: A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of an internet‐based exercise intervention on quality of life, pain, muscle strength and fatigue in breast cancer survivors. Cancer, 122(20), 3166–3174. 10.1002/cncr.30172 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Garcia, A. N. , Gondo, F. L. , Costa, R. A. , Cyrillo, F. N. , & Costa, L. O. (2011). Effects of two physical therapy interventions in patients with chronic non‐specific low back pain: Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 15(5), 420–427. 10.1590/S1413-35552011005000019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Garg, S. , Garg, D. , Turin, T. C. , & Chowdhury, M. F. U. (2016). Web‐based interventions for chronic back pain: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(7), e139. 10.2196/jmir.4932 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gielen, A. C. , McDonald, E. M. , Gary, T. L. , & Bone, L. R. (2008). Using the precede‐proceed model to apply health behavior theories. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice, 4, 407–429. [Google Scholar]
  17. Glanz, K. , Rimer, B. K. , & Viswanath, K. (Eds.). (2015). Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5th Edition, Jossey‐Bass. [Google Scholar]
  18. Green, L. W. , & Kreuter, M. W. (2005). Health promotion planning: An educational and ecological approach, 4th Edition, New York: McGraw‐Hill. [Google Scholar]
  19. Green, L. W. , & Kreuter, M. W. (1991). Health promotion planning: An education and environmental approach, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hasegawa, T. , Katsuhira, J. , Oka, H. , Fujii, T. , & Matsudaira, K. (2018). Association of low back load with low back pain during static standing. PLoS One, 13(12), e0208877. 10.1371/journal.pone.0208877 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hawker, G. A. , Mian, S. , Kendzerska, T. , & French, M. (2011). Measures of adult pain: Visual analog scale for pain (vas pain), numeric rating scale for pain (nrs pain), mcgill pain questionnaire (mpq), short‐form mcgill pain questionnaire (sf‐mpq), chronic pain grade scale (cpgs), short form‐36 bodily pain scale (sf‐36 bps) and measure of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (icoap). Arthritis Care & Research, 63(S11), S240–S252. 10.1002/acr.20543 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hignett, S. (1996). Work‐related back pain in nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 23(6), 1238–1246. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1996.13423.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hurley, D. A. , Keogh, A. , Mc Ardle, D. , Hall, A. M. , Richmond, H. , Guerin, S. , Magdalinski, T. , & Matthews, J. (2019). Evaluation of an E‐learning training program to support implementation of a group‐based, theory‐driven, self‐management intervention for osteoarthritis and low‐back pain: Pre‐post study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(3), e11123. 10.2196/11123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Irvine, A. B. , Russell, H. , Manocchia, M. , Mino, D. E. , Cox Glassen, T. , Morgan, R. , Gau, J. M. , Birney, A. J. , & Ary, D. V. (2015). Mobile‐Web app to self‐manage low back pain: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(1), e1. 10.2196/jmir.3130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Jahangiry, L. , Shojaeizadeh, D. , Farhangi, M. A. , Yaseri, M. , Mohammad, K. , Najafi, M. , & Montazeri, A. (2015). Interactive web‐based lifestyle intervention and metabolic syndrome: Findings from the Red Ruby (a randomized controlled trial). Trials, 16(1), 418. 10.1186/s13063-015-0950-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Járomi, M. , Kukla, A. , Szilágyi, B. , Simon‐Ugron, Á. , Bobály, V. K. , Makai, A. , Linek, P. , Ács, P. , & Leidecker, E. (2018). Back School programme for nurses has reduced low back pain levels: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(5–6), e895–e902. 10.1111/jocn.13981 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Jensen, M. P. , Karoly, P. , & Braver, S. (1986). The measurement of clinical pain intensity: A comparison of six methods. Pain, 27(1), 117–126. 10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. June, K. J. , & Cho, S. H. (2011). Low back pain and work‐related factors among nurses in intensive care units. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20(3–4), 479–487. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03210.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kamper, S. J. , Apeldoorn, A. T. , Chiarotto, A. , Smeets, R. J. E. M. , Ostelo, R. W. J. G. , Guzman, J. , & Van Tulder, M. W. (2015). Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Cochrane systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ, 350, 10.1136/bmj.h444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Karlsen, B. , Oftedal, B. , Lie, S. S. , Rokne, B. , Peyrot, M. , Zoffmann, V. , & Graue, M. (2016). Assessment of a web‐based Guided Self‐Determination intervention for adults with type 2 diabetes in general practice: A study protocol. British Medical Journal Open, 6(12), e013026. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kazemi, S. S. , Tavafian, S. S. , Hidarnia, A. , & Montazeri, A. (2019). Consequences and factors affecting work‐related low back pain among nursing professionals: A qualitative study. Payesh (Health Monitor), 18(3), 291–303. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kopec, J. A. , Esdaile, J. M. , Abrahamowicz, M. , Abenhaim, L. , Wood‐Dauphinee, S. , Lamping, D. L. , & Williams, J. I. (1995). The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Measurement Properties. Spine, 20(3), 341–352. 10.1097/00007632-199502000-00016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kovacs, F. M. , Seco, J. , Royuela, A. , Peña, A. , & Muriel, A. & Spanish Back Pain Research Network (2011). The correlation between pain, catastrophizing and disability in subacute and chronic low back pain: A study in the routine clinical practice of the Spanish National Health Service. Spine, 36(4), 339–345. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cfba29 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Krein, S. L. , Kadri, R. , Hughes, M. , Kerr, E. A. , Piette, J. D. , Holleman, R. , Kim, H. M. , & Richardson, C. R. (2013). Pedometer‐based internet‐mediated intervention for adults with chronic low back pain: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(8), e181. 10.2196/jmir.2605 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lambeek, L. C. , van Tulder, M. W. , Swinkels, I. C. , Koppes, L. L. , Anema, J. R. , & van Mechelen, W. (2011). The trend in total cost of back pain in The Netherlands in the period 2002 to 2007. Spine, 36(13), 1050–1058. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e70488 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lin, P. H. , Tsai, Y. A. , Chen, W. C. , & Huang, S. F. (2012). Prevalence, characteristics and work‐related risk factors of low back pain among hospital nurses in Taiwan: A cross‐sectional survey. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 25(1), 41–50. 10.2478/s13382-012-0008-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Ludwig, C. , Luthy, C. , Allaz, A. F. , Herrmann, F. R. , & Cedraschi, C. (2018). The impact of low back pain on health‐related quality of life in old age: Results from a survey of a large sample of Swiss elders living in the community. European Spine Journal, 27(5), 1157–1165. 10.1007/s00586-017-5427-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. McCormack, H. M. , David, J. D. L. , & Sheather, S. (1988). Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: A critical review. Psychological Medicine, 18(4), 1007–1019. 10.1017/S0033291700009934 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mohammadi, M. , Raiegani, A. A. V. , Jalali, R. , Ghobadi, A. , & Salari, N. (2019). The prevalence of low back pain among Iranian hospital nurses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Nursing and Midwifery Studies, 8(1), 1. 10.4103/nms.nms_46_18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Mohseni‐Bandpei, M. A. , Fakhri, M. , Bargheri‐Nesami, M. , Ahmad‐Shirvani, M. , Khalilian, A. R. , & Shayesteh‐Azar, M. (2006). Occupational back pain in Iranian nurses: An epidemiological study. British Journal of Nursing, 15(17), 914–917. 10.12968/bjon.2006.15.17.21904 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Montazeri, A. , Goshtasebi, A. , Vahdaninia, M. , & Gandek, B. (2005). The Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36): Translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Quality of Life Research, 14(3), 875–882. 10.1007/s11136-004-1014-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Moorhead, S. A. , Hazlett, D. E. , Harrison, L. , Carroll, J. K. , Irwin, A. , & Hoving, C. (2013). A new dimension of health care: Systematic review of the uses, benefits and limitations of social media for health communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(4), e85. 10.2196/jmir.1933 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Mousavi, S. J. , Parnianpour, M. , Mehdian, H. , Montazeri, A. , & Mobini, B. (2006). The Oswestry disability index, the Roland‐Morris disability questionnaire and the Quebec back pain disability scale: Translation and validation studies of the Iranian versions. Spine, 31(14), E454–E459. 10.1097/01.brs.0000222141.61424.f7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Nevedal, D. C. , Wang, C. , Oberleitner, L. , Schwartz, S. , & Williams, A. M. (2013). Effects of an individually tailored web‐based chronic pain management program on pain severity, psychological health and functioning. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(9), e201. 10.2196/jmir.2296 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. O’Brien, K. M. , Hodder, R. K. , Wiggers, J. , Williams, A. , Campbell, E. , Wolfenden, L. , Yoong, S. L. , Tzelepis, F. , Kamper, S. J. , & Williams, C. M. (2018). Effectiveness of telephone‐based interventions for managing osteoarthritis and spinal pain: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. PeerJ, 6, e5846. 10.7717/peerj.5846 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Pakbaz, M. , Hosseini, M. A. , Aemmi, S. Z. , & Gholami, S. (2019). Effectiveness of the back school program on the low back pain and functional disability of Iranian nurse. Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation, 15(1), 134. 10.12965/jer.1836542.271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Parreira, P. , Heymans, M. W. , van Tulder, M. W. , Esmail, R. , Koes, B. W. , Poquet, N. , Maher, C. G. (2017). Back schools for chronic non‐specific low back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8(8), CD011674. 10.1002/14651858.CD011674.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Pender, N. J. (2011). Health promotion model manual. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/85350/HEALTH_PROMOTION_MANUAL_Rev_5‐2011.pdf
  49. Rasmussen, C. D. N. , Holtermann, A. , Bay, H. , Søgaard, K. , & Jørgensen, M. B. (2015). A multifaceted workplace intervention for low back pain in nurses' aides: A pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. Pain, 156(9), 1786. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Rutledge, T. , Atkinson, J. H. , Holloway, R. , Chircop‐Rollick, T. , D'Andrea, J. , Garfin, S. R. , Patel, S. , Penzien, D. B. , Wallace, M. , Weickgenant, A. L. , & Slater, M. (2018). Randomized controlled trial of nurse‐delivered cognitive‐behavioral therapy versus supportive psychotherapy telehealth interventions for chronic back pain. The Journal of Pain, 19(9), 1033–1039. 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.03.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Salah, M. , Mahdy, N. E. , & Mohamed, L. (2012). Effect of educational program on performance of Intensive Care Nurses to Decrement the low Back pain. Life Science Journal, 9(4), 3109–3125. [Google Scholar]
  52. Schaafsma, F. G. , Anema, J. R. , & van der Beek, A. J. (2015). Back pain: Prevention and management in the workplace. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology, 29(3), 483–494. 10.1016/j.berh.2015.04.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Schulz, K. F. , Altman, D. G. , & Moher, D. & Consort Group . (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials, 11(1), 32. 10.1136/bmj.c332 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Seifert, C. M. , Chapman, L. S. , Hart, J. K. , & Perez, P. (2012). Enhancing intrinsic motivation in health promotion and wellness. American Journal of Health Promotion, 26(3), 1–12. 10.4278/ajhp.26.3.tahp [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Serra, C. , Soler‐Font, M. , García, A. M. , Peña, P. , Vargas‐Prada, S. , & Ramada, J. M. (2019). Prevention and management of musculoskeletal pain in nursing staff by a multifaceted intervention in the workplace: Design of a cluster randomized controlled trial with effectiveness, process and economic evaluation (INTEVAL_Spain). BMC Public Health, 19(1), 348. 10.1186/s12889-019-6683-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Sezgin, D. , & Esin, M. N. (2018). Effects of a PRECEDE‐PROCEED model based ergonomic risk management programme to reduce musculoskeletal symptoms of ICU nurses. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 47, 89–97. 10.1016/j.iccn.2018.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Shiri, R. , Falah‐Hassani, K. , Heliövaara, M. , Solovieva, S. , Amiri, S. , Lallukka, T. , Burdorf, A. , Husgafvel‐Pursiainen, K. , & Viikari‐Juntura, E. (2019). Risk factors for low back pain: A Population‐Based longitudinal study. Arthritis Care & Research, 71(2), 290–299. 10.1002/acr.23710 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Smedley, J. , Trevelyan, F. , Inskip, H. , Buckle, P. , Cooper, C. , & Coggon, D. (2003). Impact of ergonomic intervention on back pain among nurses. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 29(2), 117–123, 10.5271/sjweh.713 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Solhi, M. , Kazemi, S. S. , & Yazdani, J. (2014). The effect of educational intervention based on self‐efficacy theory on general health status of women in Chaloos, Iran. http://jhad.kmu.ac.ir/article‐1‐66‐en.html
  60. Soroush, A. , Shamsi, M. , Izadi, N. , Heydarpour, B. , Samadzadeh, S. , & Shahmohammadi, A. (2018). Musculoskeletal disorders as common problems among Iranian nurses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis study. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 9, 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_235_16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Toelle, T. R. , Utpadel‐Fischler, D. A. , Haas, K. K. , & Priebe, J. A. (2019). App‐based multidisciplinary back pain treatment versus combined physiotherapy plus online education: A randomized controlled trial. NPJ Digital Medicine, 2(1), 1–9. 10.1038/s41746-019-0109-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. van der Beek, A. J. , Dennerlein, J. T. , Huysmans, M. A. , Mathiassen, S. E. , Burdorf, A. , van Mechelen, W. , van Dieën, J. H. , Frings‐Dresen, M. H. , Holtermann, A. , Janwantanakul, P. , van der Molen, H. F. , Rempel, D. , Straker, L. , Walker‐Bone, K. , & Coenen, P. (2017). A research framework for the development and implementation of interventions preventing work‐related musculoskeletal disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health, 43(6), 526–539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Hoof, W. , O’Sullivan, K. , O’Keeffe, M. , Verschueren, S. , O’Sullivan, P. , & Dankaerts, W. (2018). The efficacy of interventions for low back pain in nurses: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 77, 222–231. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.10.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Vos, T. , Abajobir, A. A. , Abate, K. H. , Abbafati, C. , Abbas, K. M. , Abd‐Allah, F. , Abdulkader, R. S. , Abdulle, A. M. , Abebo, T. A. , Abera, S. F. , Aboyans, V. , Abu‐Raddad, L. J. , Ackerman, I. N. , Adamu, A. A. , Adetokunboh, O. , Afarideh, M. , Afshin, A. , Agarwal, S. K. , Aggarwal, R. , … Murray, C. J. L. (2017). Global, regional and national incidence, prevalence and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet, 390(10100), 1211–1259. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32154-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Ware, J. E. Jr , & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36‐item short‐form health survey (SF‐36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Welch, V. , Petkovic, J. , Pardo, J. P. , Rader, T. , & Tugwell, P. (2016). Interactive social media interventions to promote health equity: An overview of reviews. Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada: Research, Policy and Practice, 36(4), 63. 10.24095/hpcdp.36.4.01 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about teaching methods, Camberwell: ACER Press. [Google Scholar]
  68. Yassi, A. , & Lockhart, K. (2013). Work‐relatedness of low back pain in nursing personnel: A systematic review. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 19(3), 223–244. 10.1179/2049396713Y.0000000027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be available from the corresponding author on request.

Articles from Nursing Open are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES