Laura Viester1, Evert A L M Verhagen, Paulien M Bongers, Allard J van der Beek. 1. Department of Public and Occupational Health, The EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, l.viester@vumc.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of the present study is to investigate the effects of a worksite health promotion intervention on musculoskeletal symptoms, physical functioning, work ability, work-related vitality, work performance, and sickness absence. METHODS: In a randomized controlled design, 314 construction workers were randomized into an intervention group (n = 162) receiving personal coaching, tailored information, and materials, and a control group (n = 152) receiving usual care. Sickness absence was recorded continuously in company records, and questionnaires were completed before, directly after the 6-month intervention period, and 12 months after baseline measurements. Linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to determine intervention effects. RESULTS: No significant changes at 6 or 12 months of follow-up were observed in musculoskeletal symptoms, physical functioning, work ability, work-related vitality, work performance, and sickness absence as a result of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the intervention was not statistically significantly effective on secondary outcomes. Although the intervention improved physical activity, dietary, and weight-related outcomes, it was not successful in decreasing musculoskeletal symptoms and improving other work-related measures. Presumably, more multifaceted interventions are required to establish significant change in these outcomes.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The objective of the present study is to investigate the effects of a worksite health promotion intervention on musculoskeletal symptoms, physical functioning, work ability, work-related vitality, work performance, and sickness absence. METHODS: In a randomized controlled design, 314 construction workers were randomized into an intervention group (n = 162) receiving personal coaching, tailored information, and materials, and a control group (n = 152) receiving usual care. Sickness absence was recorded continuously in company records, and questionnaires were completed before, directly after the 6-month intervention period, and 12 months after baseline measurements. Linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to determine intervention effects. RESULTS: No significant changes at 6 or 12 months of follow-up were observed in musculoskeletal symptoms, physical functioning, work ability, work-related vitality, work performance, and sickness absence as a result of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the intervention was not statistically significantly effective on secondary outcomes. Although the intervention improved physical activity, dietary, and weight-related outcomes, it was not successful in decreasing musculoskeletal symptoms and improving other work-related measures. Presumably, more multifaceted interventions are required to establish significant change in these outcomes.
Authors: Swenne G van den Heuvel; Goedele A Geuskens; Wendela E Hooftman; Lando L J Koppes; Seth N J van den Bossche Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2010-09
Authors: Suzan J W Robroek; Kerstin G Reeuwijk; Frances C Hillier; Clare L Bambra; Rogier M van Rijn; Alex Burdorf Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2013-03-04 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Andreas Holtermann; Marie B Jørgensen; Bibi Gram; Jeanette R Christensen; Anne Faber; Kristian Overgaard; John Ektor-Andersen; Ole S Mortensen; Gisela Sjøgaard; Karen Søgaard Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Laura Viester; Evert A L M Verhagen; Karin I Proper; Johanna M van Dongen; Paulien M Bongers; Allard J van der Beek Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Pieter Coenen; Suzan J W Robroek; Allard J van der Beek; Cécile R L Boot; Frank J van Lenthe; Alex Burdorf; Karen M Oude Hengel Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Maartje C Bakhuys Roozeboom; Noortje M Wiezer; Cécile R L Boot; Paulien M Bongers; Roosmarijn M C Schelvis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ingrid J M Hendriksen; Mirjam Snoijer; Brenda P H de Kok; Jeroen van Vilsteren; Hedwig Hofstetter Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Susan E Peters; Michael P Grant; Justin Rodgers; Justin Manjourides; Cassandra A Okechukwu; Jack T Dennerlein Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lucia Tarro; Elisabet Llauradó; Gemma Ulldemolins; Pedro Hermoso; Rosa Solà Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-03-14 Impact factor: 3.390