Cross-sectional survey reveals low back pain prevalence at 16.8% in construction workers in eThekwini, indicating significant risk factors related to stress and smoking.
Background. Occupational-related lower back pain (LBP) has received growing attention, especially regarding its effect on work productivity and disability. Construction workers (CWs) are involved in one of the most physically demanding occupations, making them exceedingly susceptible to LBP. The objective was to determine LBP’s prevalence and identify selected risk factors among CWs within the eThekwini Municipality in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Materials and methods. A cross-sectional survey was conducted on 256 CWs, and questionnaires were provided to participants at their respective companies. The questionnaire included sections on demographics, lifestyle, occupational risk factors, and LBP history. IBM SPSS version 28 was used to analyze the data. A p-value of < 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. Both point prevalence (occurrence of LBP at the time of the survey) and period prevalence (occurrence of LBP over the past six months) were analyzed. Results. The point and period prevalences were 16.8 and 26.2 %, respectively. The results indicated that 36.6 % of current smokers reported LBP, with a higher incidence of 73.3 % among those smoking for over 15 years. Stress emerged as a significant factor; 54.8 % of subjects experiencing work-related stress and 68.2 % under personal stress reported LBP, contrasted with only 22.8 % of those experiencing no stress. Scaffolders exhibited a higher LBP prevalence (50 %) than general workers (43.2 %), erectors (33.3 %), and bricklayers (30.5 %). Conclusions. LBP continues to be a significant health burden for CWs, impacting their daily activities and causing disability. Therefore, a joint intervention strategy between health professionals and the construction industry is required. This will reduce absenteeism, stress, decreased productivity and activity limitations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moodley et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: