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。
