Deokhoon Jun1,2, Michaleff Zoe3,4,5, Venerina Johnston6, Shaun O'Leary6,3. 1. School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. deokhoon.jun@uq.net.au. 2. Division of Physiotherapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, 4072, Australia. deokhoon.jun@uq.net.au. 3. Department of Physiotherapy, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Queensland Health, Brisbane, Australia. 4. Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK. 5. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 6. School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Identifying risk factors associated with the development of work-related neck pain in office workers is necessary to facilitate the development of prevention strategies that aim to minimise this prevalent and costly health problem. The aim of this systematic review is to identify individual worker (e.g., lifestyle activity, muscular strength, and posture) and workplace (e.g., ergonomics and work environment) physical factors associated with the development of non-specific neck pain in office workers. METHODS: Studies from 1980 to 2016 were identified by an electronic search of Pubmed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Psychlnfo and Proquest databases. Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the epidemiological appraisal instrument (EAI). A random effect model was used to estimate the risk of physical factors for neck pain. RESULTS: Twenty papers described the findings of ten prospective cohort studies and two randomized controlled trials. Low satisfaction with the workplace environment (pooled RR 1.28; CI 1.07-1.55), keyboard position close to the body [pooled RR 1.46; (CI 1.07-1.99)], low work task variation [RR 1.27; CI (1.08-1.50)] and self-perceived medium/high muscular tension (pooled RR 2.75/1.82; CI 1.60 /1.14-4.72/2.90) were found to be risk factors for the development of neck pain. CONCLUSIONS: This review found evidence for a few number of physical risk factors for the development of neck pain, however, there was also either limited or conflicting factors. Recommendations for future studies evaluating risk factors are reported and how these may contribute to the prevention of neck pain in office workers.
INTRODUCTION: Identifying risk factors associated with the development of work-related neck pain in office workers is necessary to facilitate the development of prevention strategies that aim to minimise this prevalent and costly health problem. The aim of this systematic review is to identify individual worker (e.g., lifestyle activity, muscular strength, and posture) and workplace (e.g., ergonomics and work environment) physical factors associated with the development of non-specific neck pain in office workers. METHODS: Studies from 1980 to 2016 were identified by an electronic search of Pubmed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Psychlnfo and Proquest databases. Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the epidemiological appraisal instrument (EAI). A random effect model was used to estimate the risk of physical factors for neck pain. RESULTS: Twenty papers described the findings of ten prospective cohort studies and two randomized controlled trials. Low satisfaction with the workplace environment (pooled RR 1.28; CI 1.07-1.55), keyboard position close to the body [pooled RR 1.46; (CI 1.07-1.99)], low work task variation [RR 1.27; CI (1.08-1.50)] and self-perceived medium/high muscular tension (pooled RR 2.75/1.82; CI 1.60 /1.14-4.72/2.90) were found to be risk factors for the development of neck pain. CONCLUSIONS: This review found evidence for a few number of physical risk factors for the development of neck pain, however, there was also either limited or conflicting factors. Recommendations for future studies evaluating risk factors are reported and how these may contribute to the prevention of neck pain in office workers.
Authors: Ewa Wigaeus Tornqvist; Mats Hagberg; Maud Hagman; Eva Hansson Risberg; Allan Toomingas Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Luigi Di Lorenzo; Valeria Coco; Francesco Forte; Giovanni Felice Trinchese; Alfonso Maria Forte; Marco Pappagallo Journal: Muscles Ligaments Tendons J Date: 2014-05-08
Authors: Philippe Kiss; Marc De Meester; André Kruse; Brigitte Chavée; Lutgart Braeckman Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Fredric Gerr; Michele Marcus; Cindy Ensor; David Kleinbaum; Susan Cohen; Alicia Edwards; Eileen Gentry; Daniel J Ortiz; Carolyn Monteilh Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Jaime Guzman; Eric L Hurwitz; Linda J Carroll; Scott Haldeman; Pierre Côté; Eugene J Carragee; Paul M Peloso; Gabrielle van der Velde; Lena W Holm; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Margareta Nordin; J David Cassidy Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Lucia Bertozzi; Ivan Gardenghi; Francesca Turoni; Jorge Hugo Villafañe; Francesco Capra; Andrew A Guccione; Paolo Pillastrini Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2013-04-04
Authors: Fleur E P van Dooren; Giesje Nefs; Miranda T Schram; Frans R J Verhey; Johan Denollet; François Pouwer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Francis Q S Dzakpasu; Alison Carver; Christian J Brakenridge; Flavia Cicuttini; Donna M Urquhart; Neville Owen; David W Dunstan Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 6.457