Body@Work TNO VU University Medical Center, Research Center Physical Activity, Work and Health, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2011 Sep;37(5):383-93. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3163. Epub 2011 Apr 15.
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.
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.
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).
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.
本随机对照试验(RCT)旨在研究参与式工效学(PE)计划对预防下背痛和颈痛的有效性。
将 37 个部门随机分配到干预组(PE)或对照组(无 PE)。在六小时的会议中,工作组遵循 PE 步骤,制定并优先考虑旨在预防下背痛和颈痛的工效学措施。随后,工作组被要求在部门实施这些工效学措施。主要结果是下背痛和颈痛的患病率,次要结果是疼痛强度和持续时间。通过基线、3、6、9 和 12 个月随访时的问卷调查收集数据。此外,还对下背痛和颈痛的病程(从不出现症状到出现症状,再从不出现症状到出现症状)进行建模。
随机程序导致 19 个干预部门(N=1472 名工人)和 18 个对照组部门(N=1575 名工人)。12 个月后,与对照组相比,PE 并不能更有效地降低下背痛和颈痛的患病率,也不能降低疼痛强度和持续时间。PE 并没有增加预防下背痛的可能性[比值比(OR)1.23,95%置信区间(95%CI)0.97-1.57)或颈痛(OR 1.01,95%CI 0.74-1.40)。然而,PE 增加了从下背痛中康复的可能性(OR 1.41,95%CI 1.01-1.96),但对颈痛没有影响(OR 0.95,95%CI 0.72-1.26)。
PE 既不能降低下背痛和颈痛的患病率和疼痛强度和持续时间,也不能预防下背痛和颈痛或促进颈痛的康复。然而,PE 在下背痛的康复方面更为有效。