Dataset Information

A cluster-randomized trial of workplace ergonomics and neck-specific exercise versus ergonomics and health promotion for office workers to manage neck pain - a secondary outcome analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Neck pain is prevalent among office workers. This study evaluated the impact of an ergonomic and exercise training (EET) intervention and an ergonomic and health promotion (EHP) intervention on neck pain intensity among the All Workers and a subgroup of Neck Pain cases at baseline.

Methods

A 12-month cluster-randomized trial was conducted in 14 public and private organisations. Office workers aged ?18?years working ?30?h per week (n?=?740) received an individualised workstation ergonomic intervention, followed by 1:1 allocation to the EET group (neck-specific exercise training), or the EHP group (health promotion) for 12?weeks. Neck pain intensity (scale: 0-9) was recorded at baseline, 12?weeks, and 12?months. Participants with data at these three time points were included for analysis (n?=?367). Intervention group differences were analysed using generalized estimating equation models on an intention-to-treat basis and adjusted for potential confounders. Subgroup analysis was performed on neck cases reporting pain ?3 at baseline (n?=?96).

Results

The EET group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in neck pain intensity at 12?weeks compared to the EHP group for All Workers (EET: ??=?-?0.53 points 95% CI: -?0.84- -?0.22 [36%] and EHP: ??=?-?0.17 points 95% CI: -?0.47-0.13 [10.5%], p-value?=?0.02) and the Neck Cases (EET: ??=?-?2.32 points 95% CI: -?3.09- -?1.56 [53%] and EHP: ??=?-?1.75 points 95% CI: -?2.35- -?1.16 [36%], p?=?0.04). Reductions in pain intensity were not maintained at 12?months with no between-group differences observed in All Workers (EET: ??=?-?0.18, 95% CI: -?0.53-0.16 and EHP: ??=?-?0.14 points 95% CI: -?0.49-0.21, p?=?0.53) or Neck Cases, although in both groups an overall reduction was found (EET: ??=?-?1.61 points 95% CI: -?2.36- -?0.89 and EHP: ??=?-?1.9 points 95% CI: -?2.59- -?1.20, p?=?0.26).

Conclusion

EET was more effective than EHP in reducing neck pain intensity in All Workers and Neck Cases immediately following the intervention period (12?weeks) but not at 12?months, with changes at 12?weeks reaching clinically meaningful thresholds for the Neck Cases. Findings suggest the need for continuation of exercise to maintain benefits in the longer term.

Clinical trial registration

hACTRN12612001154897 Date of Registration: 31/10/2012.

SUBMITTER: Johnston V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7805092 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A cluster-randomized trial of workplace ergonomics and neck-specific exercise versus ergonomics and health promotion for office workers to manage neck pain - a secondary outcome analysis.

Johnston Venerina V Chen Xiaoqi X Welch Alyssa A Sjøgaard Gisela G Comans Tracy A TA McStea Megan M Straker Leon L Melloh Markus M Pereira Michelle M O'Leary Shaun S

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20210112 1

<h4>Background</h4>Neck pain is prevalent among office workers. This study evaluated the impact of an ergonomic and exercise training (EET) intervention and an ergonomic and health promotion (EHP) intervention on neck pain intensity among the All Workers and a subgroup of Neck Pain cases at baseline.<h4>Methods</h4>A 12-month cluster-randomized trial was conducted in 14 public and private organisations. Office workers aged ≥18 years working ≥30 h per week (n = 740) received an individualised wor ...[more]

PMID: 33435941

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:This study uses the RE-AIM framework to provide a process evaluation of a workplace-based cluster randomised trial comparing an ergonomic plus exercise intervention to an ergonomic plus health promotion intervention; and to highlight variations across organisations; and consider the implications of the findings for intervention translation. METHOD:This study applied the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) methodology to examine the interventions' implementation and to explore the extent to which differences between participating organisations contributed to the variations in findings. Qualitative and quantitative data collected from individual participants, research team observations and organisations were interrogated to report on the five RE-AIM domains. RESULTS:Overall reach was 22.7% but varied across organisations (range 9 to 83%). Participants were generally representative of the recruitment pool though more females (n?=?452 or 59%) were recruited than were in the pool (49%). Effectiveness measures (health-related productivity loss and neck pain) varied across all organisations, with no clear pattern emerging to indicate the source of the variation. Organisation-level adoption (66%) and staffing level adoption (91%) were high. The interventions were implemented with minimal protocol variations and high staffing consistency, but organisations varied in their provision of resources (e.g. training space, seniority of liaisons). Mean adherence of participants to the EET intervention was 56% during the intervention period, but varied from 41 to 71% across organisations. At 12?months, 15% of participants reported regular EET adherence. Overall mean (SD) adherence to EHP was 56% (29%) across organisations during the intervention period (range 28 to 77%), with 62% of participants reporting regular adherence at 12?months. No organisations continued the interventions after the follow-up period. CONCLUSION:Although the study protocol was implemented with high consistency and fidelity, variations in four domains (reach, effectiveness, adoption and implementation) arose between the 14 participating organisations. These variations may be the source of mixed effectiveness across organisations. Factors known to increase the success of workplace interventions, such as strong management support, a visible commitment to employee wellbeing and participant engagement in intervention design should be considered and adequately measured for future interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ACTRN12612001154897; 29 October 2012.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of workplace active rest programme (WARP) on chronic low back pain (LBP) among office workers.DesignA closed cohort, stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial was conducted. The total duration of the study was 16 weeks (4 weeks for each step). Sequence allocation was randomised, but no one was blinded.SettingThis study was conducted in three offices in a Japanese electronics company. One office was for the administrative department, the others are for the engineering department.ParticipantsWe recruited 29 office workers with LBP greater than 3 months. LBP due to specific injury or disease was excluded. The median age was 38 years, and 26 (90%) were male. All participants completed the study.InterventionsIn the intervention phase, participants performed WARP comprising frequent stand-up and individualised brief exercise/physical activity during work. Physical therapists held an LBP workshop and developed tailor-made programmes before introducing WARP. We instructed participants to perform WARP at five timings during work. Control phase was set before the intervention and participants stayed as usual.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was pain intensity of LBP assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory. The secondary outcomes were work productivity loss measured using the Work Limitations Questionnaire, LBP disability assessed using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, psychosocial subscale assessed using the STarT Back Screening Tool and physical activity measured using triaxial accelerometers. These outcomes were collected at baseline and at 4-month follow-up evaluation.ResultsIn the intention-to-treat analysis, WARP did not show any significant effects on pain intensity (β, 0.01; 95% CI -0.50 to 0.52) and on the secondary outcomes. The median adherence to WARP was 28.6% (IQR, 16.8-41.1), which was equal to 1.43 times per day. No adverse effect was observed.ConclusionsThe present study was unable to confirm the effectiveness of active rest in improving LBP. Hence, further study needs to investigate its effectiveness.Trial registration numberUMIN000033210.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Occupational sedentary behaviour is an important contributor to overall sedentary risk. There is limited evidence for effective workplace interventions to reduce occupational sedentary time and increase light activity during work hours. The purpose of the study was to determine if participatory workplace interventions could reduce total sedentary time, sustained sedentary time (bouts >30 minutes), increase the frequency of breaks in sedentary time and promote light intensity activity and moderate/vigorous activity (MVPA) during work hours. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial (ANZCTR NUMBER: ACTN12612000743864) was conducted using clerical, call centre and data processing workers (n?=?62, aged 25-59 years) in 3 large government organisations in Perth, Australia. Three groups developed interventions with a participatory approach: 'Active office' (n?=?19), 'Active Workstation' and promotion of incidental office activity; 'Traditional physical activity' (n?=?14), pedometer challenge to increase activity between productive work time and 'Office ergonomics' (n?=?29), computer workstation design and breaking up computer tasks. Accelerometer (ActiGraph GT3X, 7 days) determined sedentary time, sustained sedentary time, breaks in sedentary time, light intensity activity and MVPA on work days and during work hours were measured before and following a 12 week intervention period. RESULTS: For all participants there was a significant reduction in sedentary time on work days (-1.6%, p?=?0.006) and during work hours (-1.7%, p?=?0.014) and a significant increase in number of breaks/sedentary hour on work days (0.64, p?=?0.005) and during work hours (0.72, p?=?0.015); there was a concurrent significant increase in light activity during work hours (1.5%, p?=?0.012) and MVPA on work days (0.6%, p?=?0.012). CONCLUSIONS: This study explored novel ways to modify work practices to reduce occupational sedentary behaviour. Participatory workplace interventions can reduce sedentary time, increase the frequency of breaks and improve light activity and MVPA of office workers by using a variety of interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTN12612000743864.

Dataset Information

A cluster-randomized trial of workplace ergonomics and neck-specific exercise versus ergonomics and health promotion for office workers to manage neck pain - a secondary outcome analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical trial registration

Publications

A cluster-randomized trial of workplace ergonomics and neck-specific exercise versus ergonomics and health promotion for office workers to manage neck pain - a secondary outcome analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets