Venerina Johnston1, Xiaoqi Chen2, Alyssa Welch3, Gisela Sjøgaard4, Tracy A Comans3, Megan McStea3, Leon Straker5, Markus Melloh6,7,8, Michelle Pereira2,9, Shaun O'Leary2,10. 1. The University of Queensland, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, 4067, Australia. v.johnston@uq.edu.au. 2. The University of Queensland, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, 4067, Australia. 3. The University of Queensland, Centre for Health Services Research, Brisbane, Australia. 4. University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sport Science and Clinical Biomechanics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Odense, Denmark. 5. Curtin University, School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Perth, Australia. 6. Zurich University of Applied Sciences, School of Health Professions, Institute of Health Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland. 7. Curtin University, Curtin Medical School, Perth, Australia. 8. The University of Western Australia, UWA Medical School, Perth, Australia. 9. National Healthcare Group, Health Services and Outcomes Research, 3 Fusionopolis Link #03-08, Singapore. 10. Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Department of Physiotherapy, Metro North Hospital Health Service, Brisbane, Australia.
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: β = - 0.53 points 95% CI: - 0.84- - 0.22 [36%] and EHP: β = - 0.17 points 95% CI: - 0.47-0.13 [10.5%], p-value = 0.02) and the Neck Cases (EET: β = - 2.32 points 95% CI: - 3.09- - 1.56 [53%] and EHP: β = - 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: β = - 0.18, 95% CI: - 0.53-0.16 and EHP: β = - 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: β = - 1.61 points 95% CI: - 2.36- - 0.89 and EHP: β = - 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.
RCT Entities:
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: β = - 0.53 points 95% CI: - 0.84- - 0.22 [36%] and EHP: β = - 0.17 points 95% CI: - 0.47-0.13 [10.5%], p-value = 0.02) and the Neck Cases (EET: β = - 2.32 points 95% CI: - 3.09- - 1.56 [53%] and EHP: β = - 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: β = - 0.18, 95% CI: - 0.53-0.16 and EHP: β = - 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: β = - 1.61 points 95% CI: - 2.36- - 0.89 and EHP: β = - 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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ergonomics; Exercise; Health promotion; Neck pain; Workplace
Authors: C L Brakenridge; B S Fjeldsoe; D C Young; E A H Winkler; D W Dunstan; L M Straker; G N Healy Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 6.457
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
Authors: Andrea Martina Aegerter; Manja Deforth; Thomas Volken; Venerina Johnston; Hannu Luomajoki; Holger Dressel; Julia Dratva; Markus Josef Ernst; Oliver Distler; Beatrice Brunner; Gisela Sjøgaard; Markus Melloh; Achim Elfering Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2022-09-27