The Boeing prospective study and beyond

The Boeing prospective study was reviewed. The Boeing prospective study, comprising two articles, was a large field study that explored why workers would or would not report occupational back pain problems.

The most immediate objective was to determine the extent to which conclusions drawn from the Boeing prospective study withstand critical examination. The ultimate purpose of this review was to develop guidelines for field studies of back pain in industry.

For more than a century, researchers have noted great variability among individuals in the reporting of back pain, but the explanations posed for this variability have been inconsistent. Because findings gain credibility roughly to the extent that they bear on the world outside the laboratory, field studies in particular hold great potential for clarifying the underlying explanation for individual variability in back pain reporting. The Boeing prospective study was a large and ambitious field study that examined this issue.

The Boeing prospective study was examined through the lens of research conducted since it was published. The review used both the methodological and substantive literature.

The Boeing prospective study, based on a minority of workers originally solicited to participate in it (33-41%), accounted for 7% of the variation in why workers would or would not report a back pain problem. A number of issues that may have biased its results toward the null are examined.

The highlighting of the Boeing prospective study's limitations may be instructive not so much to criticize this one particular study but, rather, to anticipate problems that in general may be encountered in field studies of back pain in industry. Looking beyond the Boeing prospective study, the following guidelines for the conduct of such studies may be proposed: 1) Study designs should be based on explanations from which testable hypotheses may be derived; 2) Subgroups within the more general category of "back pain" should be delineated; 3) Both occupational exposures and psychosocial factors should be entered into the analysis; 4) Factors not apparent at the workplace should be considered; 5. Abstracts of articles should be carefully crafted.