OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to investigate the effectiveness of the Stay@Work participatory ergonomics (PE) program to prevent low-back and neck pain. METHODS:A total of 37 departments were randomly allocated to either the intervention (PE) or control group (no PE). During a six-hour meeting, working groups followed the PE steps and composed and prioritized ergonomic measures aimed at preventing low-back and neck pain. Subsequently, working groups were requested to implement the ergonomic measures in the departments. The primary outcomes were low-back and neck pain prevalence and secondary outcomes were pain intensity and duration. Data were collected by questionnaires at baseline, and after 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-months follow-up. Additionally, the course of low-back and neck pain (transitions from no symptoms to symptoms and from symptoms to no symptoms) was modeled. RESULTS: The randomization procedure resulted in 19 intervention departments (N=1472 workers) and 18 control departments (N=1575 workers). After 12 months, the intervention was not more effective than the control group in reducing the prevalence of low-back and neck pain or reducing pain intensity and duration. PE did not increase the probability of preventing low-back pain [odds ratio (OR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.97-1.57) or neck pain (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74-1.40). However, PE increased the probability of recovering from low-back pain (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.96), but not from neck pain (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72-1.26). CONCLUSION: PE neither reduced low-back and neck pain prevalence nor pain intensity and duration nor was it effective in the prevention of low-back and neck pain or the recovery from neck pain. However, PE was more effective in the recovery from low-back pain.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to investigate the effectiveness of the Stay@Work participatory ergonomics (PE) program to prevent low-back and neck pain. METHODS: A total of 37 departments were randomly allocated to either the intervention (PE) or control group (no PE). During a six-hour meeting, working groups followed the PE steps and composed and prioritized ergonomic measures aimed at preventing low-back and neck pain. Subsequently, working groups were requested to implement the ergonomic measures in the departments. The primary outcomes were low-back and neck pain prevalence and secondary outcomes were pain intensity and duration. Data were collected by questionnaires at baseline, and after 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-months follow-up. Additionally, the course of low-back and neck pain (transitions from no symptoms to symptoms and from symptoms to no symptoms) was modeled. RESULTS: The randomization procedure resulted in 19 intervention departments (N=1472 workers) and 18 control departments (N=1575 workers). After 12 months, the intervention was not more effective than the control group in reducing the prevalence of low-back and neck pain or reducing pain intensity and duration. PE did not increase the probability of preventing low-back pain [odds ratio (OR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.97-1.57) or neck pain (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74-1.40). However, PE increased the probability of recovering from low-back pain (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.96), but not from neck pain (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72-1.26). CONCLUSION:PE neither reduced low-back and neck pain prevalence nor pain intensity and duration nor was it effective in the prevention of low-back and neck pain or the recovery from neck pain. However, PE was more effective in the recovery from low-back pain.
Authors: Ann Marie Dale; Lisa Jaegers; Laura Welch; Bethany T Gardner; Bryan Buchholz; Nancy Weaver; Bradley A Evanoff Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Linda F Cantley; Oyebode A Taiwo; Deron Galusha; Russell Barbour; Martin D Slade; Baylah Tessier-Sherman; Mark R Cullen Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Withaya Chanchai; Wanpen Songkham; Pranom Ketsomporn; Punnarat Sappakitchanchai; Wattasit Siriwong; Mark Gregory Robson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: S M Ketelaar; F G Schaafsma; M F Geldof; C R L Boot; R A Kraaijeveld; W S Shaw; U Bültmann; J Twisk; J R Anema Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2017-09
Authors: D Van Eerd; C Munhall; E Irvin; D Rempel; S Brewer; A J van der Beek; J T Dennerlein; J Tullar; K Skivington; C Pinion; B Amick Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2015-11-08 Impact factor: 4.402