Study designs of evaluations included in the review
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were eligible for inclusion. The follow-up, where stated, ranged from 3 to 5 years.
Specific interventions included in the review
Interventions were eligible if they were designed specifically to prevent some form of back or neck problem, or to prevent the development of long-term back or neck problems. None of the interventions were excluded.
The following preventative interventions were included, either alone or in combination with each other: lumbar support; training session on spinal anatomy and body mechanics; education and lifting instructions; back and/or neck school; manual physical therapy; compliance package; exercise programmes, including individually designed programmes; physiotherapy; the McKenzie method; nonmedical back pain pamphlets; dynamic endurance; group gymnastics; advice to exercise; free membership to a health club; short-wave heat as placebo; usual care; and no intervention or waiting-list control.
Participants included in the review
People who were not seeking treatment were eligible for inclusion. The participants were enrolled in a variety of workplace settings.
The exclusion criteria varied between the studies and included the following: people with a history of back surgery; workers with current compensation claims; current back pain; extensive sick leave; nerve root compression or tendonitis; and long-term sick leave.
The inclusion criteria also varied between the studies and included the following: back pain for less than 3 months, and pain free for the 12 months prior to the current episode; at least 3 annual episodes of lower-back pain; neck or shoulder pain, and sitting for at least 5 hours daily; with or without back pain; self-reported current or previous back pain; and frequent neck symptoms.
Outcomes assessed in the review
The inclusion criteria were not defined in terms of the outcomes. The outcomes assessed were pain, report of injury, dysfunction, time off work, health care utilisation, and cost.
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
The authors do not state how the papers were selected for the review, or how many of the reviewers performed the selection.