The Effect of an Educational Intervention Program on the Adoption of Low Back Pain Preventive Behaviors in Nurses: An Application of the Health Belief Model

Abstract

Study Design

Randomized controlled trial.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to identify the effect of a theory-based educational intervention program on the level of knowledge and Health Belief Model (HBM) constructs among nurses in terms of the adoption of preventive behaviors.

Methods

This pretest/posttest quasi-experimental study was conducted on 100 nurses who were recruited through the multistage sampling method. The nurses were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. The participants were evaluated before and 3 months after the educational intervention. A multidimensional questionnaire was prepared based on the theoretical structures of the HBM to collect the data. Data analysis was performed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Results

There was no significant difference in the mean values of HBM constructs prior to the intervention between the intervention and control groups. However, after the administration of the educational program, the mean scores of knowledge and HBM constructs significantly increased in the intervention group when compared with the control group (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The results of the current study revealed that the educational intervention based on the HBM was effective in improving the nurses’ scores of knowledge and HBM constructs; therefore, theory-based health educational strategies are suggested as an effective alternative to traditional educational interventions.

Keywords

Health Belief Model educational intervention musculoskeletal disorders preventive behaviors

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent occupational problems. It can cause lifelong physical disability and increases work absenteeism and health service use.¹,²,³ Almost 84% of the worldwide population will, at some point, experience LBP in their lifetime, making it a major public health problem.⁴,⁵ Data from the United States shows that the number of physician visits due to back pain has changed a little in the past decade,⁶ and the medical costs have increased substantially.⁴ Due to the nature of their profession, nurses are vulnerable to the development of musculoskeletal disorders including LBP. A systematic review by Dawson et al reported that LBP was six times more prevalent among nurses when compared with other professionals,⁷ and 18% of the nursing staff quit their jobs because of back pain.⁸ The prevalence of LBP among nurses varies across different regions, ranging from 41 to 75% in European countries to 40 to 60% in Asian countries and 47% in the United States.⁹ The prevalence of LBP among Iranian nurses has been reported to be more than 50% (annual prevalence = 59.6%, lifetime prevalence = 62%).¹⁰ Despite the high prevalence, the underlying causes and the nature of LBP have not yet been fully understood. Many studies in various occupational settings have found a strong association between the musculoskeletal disorders and work-related risk factors11; this association has also been found among nurses.¹² In the available literature, the risk factors of LBP have either an individual or a workplace-related origin including manual patient lifting and handling, unusual immobility posture, poor workplace design and equipment, hard physical work, and poor work organization.¹³,¹⁴

Due to the scarcity of methodologically appropriate studies, the effectiveness of educational interventions in LBP prevention remains highly controversial.¹⁵ A Cochrane review on “back schools” provided moderate evidence with regards to the effectiveness of back schools in the workplace to decrease LBP16; however, the results of the review were not in accordance with a meta-analysis that found that the existing literature could not serve as a basis for decision making on whether or not to use back schools for the management of LBP.¹⁷

Systematic reviews, however, have supported the beneficial effects of applying the Health Belief Model (HBM) in different health educational programs.¹⁸,¹⁹,²⁰ The HBM has served as a valuable tool in the field of educational evaluation to explain preventive health behaviors. It contains two main components that seek to predict preventive behaviors: threat perception and behavioral evaluation. Concerning injury prevention, threat conception comprises two main concepts: beliefs regarding susceptibility to an injury (perceived susceptibility) and beliefs concerning the anticipated severity of the consequences of an injury (perceived severity). Behavioral evaluation consists of the beliefs about the benefits of performing a recommended health behavior and the barriers to changing injury-related behaviors. Self-efficacy is the belief in one's own ability to successfully accomplish something.21 The HBM suggests that the behavior is also influenced by cues to action. Cues to action are events, people, or things that motivate people to change their behaviors (e.g., illness of a family member, media reports, mass media campaigns, advice from others, reminder postcards from a health care provider, or health warning labels on a product; Fig. 1).²²,²³ The current study was conducted to determine the effect of an HBM-based health educational program on the knowledge level and HBM constructs among nurses in terms of the adoption of preventive behaviors of chronic LBP.

Fig. 1

The constructs of Health Belief Model.

Materials and Methods

This pre-/posttest quasi-experimental study was conducted on nurses in teaching/nonprivate hospitals affiliated with Arak University of Medical Sciences, Iran. Written consent was obtained from all the participants prior to the start of the study. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Arak University of Medical Sciences (registration number: 91–137–5), and the study protocol was registered at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT2013082814512N1). The inclusion criteria were (1) having at least 1 year of clinical experience; (2) being a full-time employee; (3) not having any medical conditions causing back pain.

All the major concepts of the HBM were used to provide a theoretical framework for the proposed study. The HBM-based educational program consisted of four 60-minute sessions presented through lecture, role-play, and discussion groups. The educational intervention sessions were provided by the research team including ergonomic experts and public health educators. The content of the educational interventions included information about chronic LBP, its risk factors and complications, the benefits of acquiring preventive behaviors, the identification of barriers in the workplace, individual and social management regarding LBP, and the prevention skills and approaches against LBP among nurses. Educational interventions involved electronic media, print media (pamphlets, posters, and brochure), and face-to-face active interactions.

Sample

The sample size was estimated using a sample size calculator. In a review of the literature,²⁴ a mean difference of 0.8 (standard deviation = 0.9) was found for behavioral changes to be clinically significant. The sample size of the study was calculated as 38 participants in each group with an α of 0.01 and a power of 90%. However, the number of participants assigned to each group was 50 to allow for 10% attrition.

The samples were selected in stages. In the first stage, we identified the hospitals (Amirmomenin and Amirkabir) through a simple random sampling procedure. In the second stage, Amirkabir General Hospital was selected for intervention by the manual method of drawing lots. In the third stage, the population was first segmented into mutually exclusive subgroups based on the different wards in each hospital, and then the participants were selected from each segment based on equal proportion (n = 100). Of 100 nurses included in the study, 50 were assigned to the intervention and 50 to the control group. Postintervention surveys were conducted 12 weeks after the initiation of the intervention.

Measurement Instruments

A self-reported questionnaire was used as the data collection tool. The questionnaire included four sections: (1) the demographic characteristics of the nurses, (2) the knowledge quiz, (3) the HBM constructs and self-efficacy, and (4) a checklist to assess the participants’ performance levels of adopting preventive LBP behaviors (Table 1). The content validity was evaluated using a content validity questionnaire by a panel of experts, a comprehensive review of relevant literature,²⁵,^26,27 and the clarity of the wording of the questions and rating of the responses. The panel consisted of public health faculty members, ergonomic experts, and occupational health professionals. Reliability tests were conducted for the scales, and a Cronbach α of 0.7 or higher was considered acceptable. To evaluate whether the questions measured the underlying constructs, 59 items were analyzed in a sample of 30 nurses who shared similar demographic characteristics. Of all participants, 2% dropped out of the study (response rate = 98%).

Table 1

Items in questionnaire and maximum and minimum scores

Variables	Number of questions	Minimum–maximum score
Demographic characteristics	8
Knowledge	8	0–8
Perceived sensitivity	5	5–25
Perceived severity	4	4–20
Perceived benefits	4	4–20
Perceived barriers	5	5–25
Cues to action	6	6–30
Self-efficacy	5	5–25
Participant's performance	22	0–66

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v.20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States). We analyzed the data by performing paired and independent t tests. Statistical significance was set at α = 0.05 in all analyses.

Results

The result of the questionnaire reliability revealed that Cronbach α ranged from 0.72 to 0.79 in the four parts (the knowledge quiz, the HBM constructs, self-efficacy, and the checklist of performance). There was no significant difference in the demographic characteristics between the case and control groups (Table 2).

Table 2

Distribution of demographic characteristics of participants according to intervention

Demographic characteristics	Group		p Value (chi-square)
	Control (n = 50)	Intervention (n = 48)
Sex			0.49
Male	5 (10%)	3 (6.2%)
Female	45 (90%)	45 (93.8%)
Age (y)			0.25
Below 35	43 (86%)	42 (87.5%)
35 and over	7 (14%)	6 (12.5%)
Educational degree			0.97
B.Sc.	49 (98%)	47 (97.9%)
M.Sc. or higher	1 (2%)	1 (2.1%)
Marital status			0.36
Single	20 (4%)	15 (13.2%)
Married	30 (6%)	33 (68.2%)

Preintervention evaluation of knowledge revealed that the majority of the nurses in both groups had insufficient knowledge regarding CLBP prevention (sometimes including postural advice and anatomical, physiologic, and ergonomic principles). Comparison of the baseline mean scores showed no significant difference in knowledge (t = −0.95, p = 0.34), perceived susceptibility (t = 0.30, p = 0.76), perceived barriers (t = 0.57, p = 0.56), cues to action (t = 0.98, p = 0.32), and self-efficacy (t = 0.76, p = 0.94) between the two groups (Table 3).

Table 3

Comparisons of knowledge and the Health Belief Model constructs scores before and after the intervention

	Group (mean ± SD)
Variable	Intervention (n = 48)	Control (n = 50)	p Value^a
Knowledge
Before	60.1 ± 14.9	57.7 ± 16.5	0.34
After	80.9 ± 13.6	58.5 ± 14.1	0.0001^a
p Value^b	0.0001^a	0.59
Perceived susceptibility
Before	68.5 ± 5.4	68.9 ± 5.2	0.76
After	74.1 ± 4.4	69.3 ± 5.5	0.0001^a
p Value^b	0.0001^a	0.30
Perceived seriousness
Before	69 ± 6.3	70.4 ± 6.6	0.35
After	74.5 ± 5.5	71.3 ± 6.5	0.0001^a
p Value^b	0.0001^a	0.048^a
Perceived benefits
Before	75.5 ± 6.2	76.2 ± 6.3	0.44
After	79.4 ± 5.9	76.6 ± 5.2	0.01^a
p Value^b	0.0001^a	0.39
Perceived barriers
Before	76.9 ± 7	77.6 ± 8.2	0.56
After	58 ± 6.2	78.3 ± 7.4	0.0001^a
p Value^b	0.0001^a	0.09
Cues to action
Before	48.4 ± 8	49.8 ± 8.2	0.32
After	60.9 ± 6.6	50.6 ± 8.5	0.0001^a
p Value^b	0.0001^a	0.07
Self-efficacy
Before	55.5 ± 9.4	56 ± 11.6	0.94
After	73.9 ± 5.7	56.5 ± 10	0.0001^a
p Value^b	0.0001^a	0.36
Preventive behaviors
Before	42.8 ± 7	45 ± 6.8	0.12
After	56.8 ± 5.4	45.6 ± 5.9	0.0001^a
p Value^b	0.0001^a	0.10

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

Significant, independent samples t test.

Significant, paired samples t test.

The results of paired sample t tests showed no significant difference in the pretest and posttest knowledge scores of the control group (p > 0.05). The pretest–posttest mean differences of the HBM constructs were not also statistically significant in the control group (p > 0.05), except for the mean difference of the perceived benefits that showed a marginally significant difference upon completion of the study (p = 0.048). The participants in the control group also demonstrated low self-efficacy in the adoption of preventive behaviors of chronic LBP (t = −0.91, p = 0.36).

The mean knowledge score of CLBP was 60.1 ± 14.9 before the education and 80.9 ± 13.6 after the implementation of intervention in the intervention group. The difference between preintervention and postintervention mean knowledge scores was statistically significant (t = −9.28, p = 0.0001; Table 3).

The paired t test of health belief scores showed that the scores of the health belief subscales were mostly higher after the intervention when compared with before the intervention (p < 0.0001) in the intervention group (Table 3). The mean score of perceived barriers decreased significantly after the intervention (t = 14.37, p = 0.0001). The greatest increase was seen for the self-efficacy scores; the pretest average was 55.5 ± 9.9 and increased to 73.9 ± 5.7 after the intervention.

The subscales of HBM, perceived susceptibility (t = −6.64, p = 0.0001), perceived benefits (t = −4.01, p = 0.0001), perceived barriers (t = 14.37, p = 0.0001), cues to action (t = −11.24, p = 0.0001), and self-efficacy (t = −12.92, p = 0.0001) for LBP prevention behavior showed significant differences between the two groups after the intervention (Table 3).

Discussion

In this study, an educational program was performed based on the HBM. The results of this study showed an increase in the mean scores of perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits, and self-efficacy and also a decrease in the mean score of perceived barriers after the implementation of the educational program in the intervention group. Preintervention evaluation of the knowledge level showed a deficit in the nurses’ knowledge of LBP prevention in both the intervention and control groups. Other studies also reported inadequate knowledge of the nurses about LBP prevention.²⁸,²⁹,³⁰ There is also a strong body of evidence that nurses with sufficient knowledge of and positive attitude toward LBP prevention are inclined to practice a higher level of LBP preventive behavior.²⁸,²⁹ The findings of the current study suggested that the HBM could be used in prevention programs aiming at promoting behavioral changes.

The results also showed that among the HBM constructs, the greatest increase was seen in the mean score of self-efficacy after intervention, indicating that the nurses had a stronger belief in their own capabilities to execute preventive actions required for the prevention of LBP. In a study by Fongsri et al, the intervention reduced LBP and increased the tendency to engage in the recommended health behavior through the promotion of self-efficacy.³¹

In our study, the perceived barriers decreased while the other subscales including perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits, and cues to action increased, indicating that the HBM-based educational intervention was successful. The program provided the participants with substantial empirical support for the HBM; however, more studies are needed to examine whether nurses put into practice the educational information they receive via LBP preventive interventions. A randomized controlled study designed to prevent low back injuries among 4,000 postal employees showed that the educational program did not change the rate of LBP, average costs of an injury, employees’ absence due to injury, and the rate of injury recurrence after returning to work.³² A probable explanation for the existing conflict can be the multifactorial nature of LBP, which demands multicomponent interventions including educational and training programs, multidisciplinary interventions, and interventions to treat employees with LBP.

Limitations

The quasi-experimental design utilized in this study does not allow generalization of the results to other groups of nurses because many factors may not have been fully controlled.

Conclusions

The results of the study showed that an educational intervention program based on the HBM could promote preventive behaviors among nurses. Therefore, it is suggested that educational interventions based on health educational models replace routine interventions.

Disclosures

Naser Sharafkhani, none

Mahboobeh Khorsandi, none

Mohsen Shamsi, none

Mehdi Ranjbaran, none

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by Arak University of Medical Sciences. The authors thank the deputies of education and research of the university, the director of the research affairs, and the nurses who participated in the study.

References

Gore

Sadosky

Stacey

B R

Tai

K S

Leslie

The burden of chronic low back pain: clinical comorbidities, treatment patterns, and health care costs in usual care settings

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012 37 11 E668–E677

Ibrahim

Tleyjeh

I M

Gabbar

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

Int Orthop 2008 32 1 107–113

Melloh

Röder

Elfering

, et al.

Differences across health care systems in outcome and cost-utility of surgical and conservative treatment of chronic low back pain: a study protocol

BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008 9 81

Balagué

Mannion

A F

Pellisé

Cedraschi

Non-specific low back pain

Lancet 2012 379 9814 482–491

Crowe

Whitehead

Jo Gagan

Baxter

Panckhurst

Self-management and chronic low back pain: a qualitative study

J Adv Nurs 2010 66 7 1478–1486

Deyo

R A

Mirza

S K

Martin

B I

Back pain prevalence and visit rates: estimates from U.S. national surveys, 2002

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006 31 23 2724–2727

Dawson

A P

McLennan

S N

Schiller

S D

Jull

G A

Hodges

P W

Stewart

Interventions to prevent back pain and back injury in nurses: a systematic review

Occup Environ Med 2007 64 10 642–650

Maul

Läubli

Klipstein

Krueger

Course of low back pain among nurses: a longitudinal study across eight years

Occup Environ Med 2003 60 7 497–503

June

K J

Cho

S H

Low back pain and work-related factors among nurses in intensive care units

J Clin Nurs 2011 20 3–4 479–487

10.

Mohseni-Bandpei

M A

Fakhri

Bagheri-Nesami

Ahmad-Shirvani

Khalilian

A R

Shayesteh-Azar

Occupational back pain in Iranian nurses: an epidemiological study

Br J Nurs 2006 15 17 914–917

11.

Bernard

B P

Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors: a critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related disorders of the neck, upper extremities, and low back

Cincinnati, OH

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

1997 . Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-141/pdfs/97-141.pdf

12.

Lagerström

Hansson

Hagberg

Work-related low-back problems in nursing

Scand J Work Environ Health 1998 24 6 449–464

13.

Alexandre

N MC

Angerami

E LS

Ergonomics aspects in patient transport

Rev Bras Saúde Ocup 1993 21 81–90

14.

Knibbe

J J

Friele

R D

Prevalence of back pain and characteristics of the physical workload of community nurses

Ergonomics 1996 39 2 186–198

15.

Dupeyron

Ribinik

Gélis

, et al.

Education in the management of low back pain: literature review and recall of key recommendations for practice

Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2011 54 5 319–335

16.

Van Tulder

Esmail

Bombardier

, et al.

Back schools for non-specific low back pain, 1999 edition

In:

The Cochrane Library, Issue 3

Oxford, UK

Update Software

1999

17.

Maier-Riehle

Härter

The effects of back schools—a meta-analysis

Int J Rehabil Res 2001 24 3 199–206

18.

Daddario

D K

A review of the use of the health belief model for weight management

Medsurg Nurs 2007 16 6 363–366

19.

Chang

L C

Hung

L L

Chou

Y W

Ling

L M

Applying the health belief model to analyze intention to participate in preventive pulmonary tuberculosis chest X-ray examinations among indigenous nursing students

J Nurs Res 2007 15 1 78–87

20.

Sharifirad

Entezari

M H

Kamran

Azadbakht

The effectiveness of nutritional education on the knowledge of diabetic patients using the health belief model

J Res Med Sci 2009 14 1 1–6

21.

Glanz

Rimer

B K

Viswanath

Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice

San Francisco, CA

John Wiley & Sons

2008

22.

Ali

N S

Prediction of coronary heart disease preventive behaviors in women: a test of the health belief model

Women Health 2002 35 1 83–96

23.

Graham

M E

Liggons

Hypolite

Health beliefs and self breast examination in black women

J Cult Divers 2002 9 2 49–54

24.

Mohammadi Zeidi

The effect of stage–matched educational intervention on reduction in musculoskeletal disorders among computer users

Clinical Chiropract 2011 14 1 17–28

25.

U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Guidelines for Nursing Homes: Ergonomics for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2009

Available at: https://www.osha.gov/ergonomics/guidelines/nursinghome/final_nh_guidelines.html . Accessed June 20, 2015

26.

Sherehiy

Karwowski

Marek

Relationship between risk factors and musculoskeletal disorders in the nursing profession: a systematic review

Occup Ergon 2004 4 241–279

27.

Nelson

A L

Motacki

M K

Menzel

The Illustrated Guide to Safe Patient Handling and Movement

New York, NY

Springer Publishing Company

2009

28.

Cilliers

Maart

Attitudes, knowledge and treatment of low back pain amongst nurses in the Eastern Cape, South Africa

African Journal of Primary Health Care & Family Medicine 2013 5 8

29.

Karahan

Bayraktar

Effectiveness of an education program to prevent nurses’ low back pain: an interventional study in Turkey

Workplace Health Saf 2013 61 2 73–78

30.

Sikiru

Hanifa

Prevalence and risk factors of low back pain among nurses in a typical Nigerian hospital

Afr Health Sci 2010 10 1 26–30

31.

Fongsri

Rawiworrakul

Kaewboonchoo

, et al.

Effects of a self-efficacy promoting program for low back pain prevention in patient transfer workers, at a university hospital in Bangkok

Asia J Public Health 2011 2 2 47–53

32.

Daltroy

L H

Iversen

M D

Larson

M G

, et al.

A controlled trial of an educational program to prevent low back injuries

N Engl J Med 1997 337 5 322–328