Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Practice

Use of back belts to prevent occupational low-back pain

Recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
CMAJ August 05, 2003 169 (3) 213-214;
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

    Recommendation

  • The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care concludes that the existing evidence is conflicting and does not allow the task force to make a recommendation for or against the use of back belts to either prevent occupational low-back pain or to reduce lost work time due to occupational low-back pain (grade C recommendation).

In Canada, back injuries account for over 25% of all lost time claims, the largest single claims category in most workers' compensation jurisdictions.1 Low-back pain (LBP), which is often seen initially in primary care practice, is estimated to be the most costly ailment in working-age adults.2 Disability resulting from LBP is the most common chronic health problem in adults under the age of 45 years and is second only to arthritis in those aged 45–65.3 Of the more than 90% of workers who return to work within 6 months of their injury, 20%–44% will experience recurrences resulting in further time off work and 15%–20% of patients will continue to experience back pain for at least 1 year from the initial onset.4

Potential risk factors for occupational LBP fall into 3 main categories: individual, biomechanical and psychosocial.5 The strongest risk factor is a previous history of LBP. In addition, the greater the severity of a given episode, the greater the risk that another episode will occur in the future.2 Weaker associations exist for age, obesity and sex.2 There is no evidence that strength, flexibility or aerobic capacity is an important risk or protective factor in back pain.6 Among biomechanical risk factors, the most consistent associations are with exposure to lifting or carrying heavy loads, whole body vibration and frequent bending and twisting.2,7,8 Finally, there is growing empirical evidence linking psychosocial stressors, such as perceived high workload, time pressure, lack of intellectual discretion and job dissatisfaction, with an increased risk of occupational LBP.6,7,9

Manoeuvre

· Use of mechanical back supports (e.g., belts or corsets)

Potential benefits

• Reduction in occurrence or recurrence of LBP

• Reduction in time lost from work owing to LBP

Potential harms

• Rubbing, pinching or bruising of ribs; hampered sitting and driving; excessive sweating

• False sense of security

• Laboratory studies show increases in blood and intra-abdominal pressure, back muscle weakening and abdominal hernia

Recommendations by others

The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety20 and the United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health16,21 do not support the use of back belts as a preventive measure. In contrast, the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration's recent ergonomics regulation22 classified lumbar supports as personal protective equipment and suggested that they may prevent back injuries in certain industrial settings.

    Evidence and clinical summary

  • Three out of the 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reviewed failed to show positive results with the use of a back belt.10,11,12 The fourth RCT13 showed decreased time lost by workers who received training and used a back belt, but possibly only among workers with a previous history of LBP. The other RCT14 found a marginally lower rate of back injury among employees assigned to a back belt group than among controls.

  • Those with a previous history of LBP may experience some benefit from back belt use. However, before back belt prescription, patients should be screened for cardiovascular risk and receive training in the mechanics of lifting.15

  • Although some laboratory evidence suggests possible concern over adverse effects of long-term use, these risks have not been proven; however, given the combination of questionable benefits and the potential for negative effects, back belts should be prescribed only for short-term use.15

  • The reviewed studies used diverse styles of back belts. Because no one style produced beneficial results, it is unlikely that design differences were a factor.

  • The lack of consistent conclusions from the reviewed studies is not surprising given the conflicting laboratory evidence of how back belts are thought to prevent LBP.16,17,18 Controversy over back belt use extends into the area of treatment, where results from RCTs are also conflicting.

  • Further well-designed RCTs are required to determine the effectiveness of back belts to prevent LBP in high-risk groups, in particular those with previous LBP. This finding is similar to that of a recent Cochrane review.19

𝛃 See related article page 207

Footnotes

  • The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is an independent panel funded through a partnership of the federal and provincial/territorial governments of Canada.

    This statement is based on the technical report: “The use of back belts for prevention of occupational low back pain: systematic review and recommendations,” by C. Ammendolia, M.S. Kerr, C. Bombardier, with the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. CTFPHC Technical Rep no 02-1. London (ON): Canadian Task Force; 2002. [To obtain the full technical report, please contact the task force at ctfctfphc.org]

    This article has been peer reviewed.

    Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada. National work injuries statistics program. Mississauga (ON): The Association; 1999.
  2. 2.↵
    Frank JW, Kerr MS, Brooker A, DeMaio S, Maetzel A, Shannon HS, et al. Disability resulting from occupational low back pain. Part I: What do we know about primary prevention? A review of the scientific evidence on prevention before disability begins. Spine 1996;21:2908-17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Bigos SJ, Bowyer OR, Braen GR, Brown K, Deyo R. Acute low back problems in adults: clinical practice guidelines 14. Rockville (MD): Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Health Services; 1994. Pub no 95-0642.
  4. 4.↵
    Rossignol M, Suissa S, Abenhaim L. Working disability due to occupational back pain: three-year follow-up of 2,300 compensated workers in Quebec. J Occup Med 1988;30:502-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Institute of Medicine. Musculoskeletal disorders and the workplace: low back and upper extremities. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001.
  6. 6.↵
    Nachemson A, Vingard E. Influences of individual factors and smoking on neck and low back pain. In: Nachemsen A, Jonsson E, editors. Neck and back pain: the scientific evidence of causes, diagnosis and treatment. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2000. p. 79-95.
  7. 7.↵
    Bernard BP, editor. Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors. A critical review of epidemiological evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and low back. Cincinnati: US Department of Health and Human Service, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1997.
  8. 8.↵
    Kerr MS, Frank JW, Shannon HS, Norman RW, Wells RP, Neumann WP, Bombardier C. Biomechanical and psychological risk factors for low back pain at work. Am J Public Health 2001;91:1069-75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Hoogendoorn WE, van Poppel MNM, Bongers PM, Koes BW, Bouter LM. Systematic review of psychosocial factors at work and private life as risk factors for back pain. Spine 2000;25:2114-25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Reddell CR, Congleton JJ, Huchingson RD, Montgomery JF. An evaluation of a weightlifting belt and back injury prevention training class for airline baggage handlers. Appl Ergon 1992;23:319-29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Van Poppel MN, Koes BW, van der Ploeg T, Smid T, Boutar LM. Lumbar supports and education for the prevention of low back pain in industry: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;279:1789-94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Alexander A, Woolley SM, Bisesi M, Schaub E. The effectiveness of back belts on occupational back injuries and worker perception. Prof Saf 1995; 40 (9):22-6.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Walsh NE, Schwartz RK. The influence of prophylactic orthoses on abdominal strength and low back injury in the workplace. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1990;69:245-50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Kraus JF, Schaffer KB, Rice T, Maroosis J, Harper J. A field study of back belts to reduce the incidence of acute low back injuries in New York City home attendants. Int J Occup Environ Health 2002;8:97-104.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    McGill S. Update on the use of back belts in industry: more data, same conclusions. In: Karwowski W, Marras W, editors. Occupational ergonomics handbook. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 1999. p. 1353-8.
  16. 16.↵
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Workplace use of back belts. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1994. Pub no 94-122.
  17. 17.↵
    Woodhouse ML, McCoy RW, Redondo DR, Shall LM. Effects of back support on intra-abdominal pressure and lumbar kinetics during heavy lifting. Hum Factors 1995;37:582-90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    Van Poppel MNM, de Looze MP, Koes BW, Smid T, Bouter LM. Mechanisms of action of lumbar supports: a systematic review. Spine 2000;25:2103-13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Jellema P, van Tulder MW, van Poppel MN, Nachenson AL, Bouter LM. Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine 2001; 26:377-86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. Back belts. Document 0365I.wpf. 250. Hamilton (ON): The Centre; 1995 Aug 11.
  21. 21.↵
    Wassell JT, Gardner LI, Landsittel DP, Johnston JJ, Johnston JM. A prospective study of back belts for prevention of back pain and injury. JAMA 2000; 284:2727-32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Ergonomic program: final rule. In: Federal Register 2000;65(220):68261-870. Washington. Available: http://www.nacubo.org/public_policy/federal_register_update/2000/112200.html (accessed 2003 Jun 26).
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 169 (3)
CMAJ
Vol. 169, Issue 3
5 Aug 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Use of back belts to prevent occupational low-back pain
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Use of back belts to prevent occupational low-back pain
Recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
CMAJ Aug 2003, 169 (3) 213-214;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Use of back belts to prevent occupational low-back pain
Recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
CMAJ Aug 2003, 169 (3) 213-214;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Manoeuvre
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • New grades for recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • New grades for recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Functional neurologic disorder associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination
  • Umbilicated papules in disseminated cryptococcosis
  • Severe acute hepatitis of unknown cause in children
Show more Practice

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Article Types
    • Guidelines
  • Topics
    • Patient education

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire