School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2019 Jan 1;45(1):42-52. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3760. Epub 2018 Aug 22.
Objectives Using an employer's perspective, this study aimed to compare the immediate and longer-term impact of workplace ergonomics and neck-specific exercise versus ergonomics and health promotion information on health-related productivity among a general population of office workers and those with neck pain. Methods A prospective one-year cluster randomized trial was conducted. Participants received an individualized workstation ergonomics intervention, combined with 12 weeks of either workplace neck-specific exercises or health promotion information. Health-related productivity at baseline, post-intervention and 12-months was measured with the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed using multilevel mixed models. Results We recruited 763 office workers from 14 organizations and allocated them to 100 clusters. For the general population of office workers, monetized productivity loss at 12 months [AU$1464 (standard deviation [SD] 1318) versus AU$1563 (SD=1039); P=0.023]; and presenteeism at 12 months [2.0 (SD 1.2) versus 2.4 (SD 1.4); P=0.007] was lower in the exercise group compared to those in the health promotion information group. For office workers with neck pain, exercise participants had lower sickness absenteeism at 12 months compared to health promotion information participants [0.7 days (SD 1.0) versus 1.4 days (SD 3.1); P-=0.012], despite a short-term increase in sickness absenteeism post-intervention compared to baseline for the exercise group [1.2 days (SD 2.2) versus 0.6 days (SD 0.9); P<0.001]. Conclusion A workplace intervention combining ergonomics and neck-specific exercise offers possible benefits for sickness presenteeism and health-related productivity loss among a general population of office workers and sickness absenteeism for office workers with neck pain in the longer-term.
目的 从雇主的角度出发,本研究旨在比较工作场所人体工程学和颈部特定运动与人体工程学和健康促进信息对一般办公人群和颈部疼痛办公人群健康相关生产力的即时和长期影响。
方法 采用前瞻性一年的聚类随机试验。参与者接受个性化工作站人体工程学干预,同时接受 12 周的工作场所颈部特定运动或健康促进信息。在基线、干预后和 12 个月时使用健康和工作表现问卷测量健康相关生产力。采用多级混合模型进行意向治疗分析。
结果 我们从 14 个组织中招募了 763 名办公人员,并将其分配到 100 个群组中。对于一般办公人群,12 个月时的货币化生产力损失[澳元 1464 元(标准差 [SD] 1318 元)与澳元 1563 元(SD=1039 元);P=0.023]和 12 个月时的缺勤率[2.0(SD 1.2)与 2.4(SD 1.4);P=0.007]在运动组中较低,而在健康促进信息组中较高。对于颈部疼痛的办公人员,与健康促进信息组相比,运动组在 12 个月时病假缺勤率较低[0.7 天(SD 1.0)与 1.4 天(SD 3.1);P=0.012],尽管运动组在干预后短期内与基线相比病假缺勤率增加[1.2 天(SD 2.2)与 0.6 天(SD 0.9);P<0.001]。
结论 在长期内,将人体工程学与颈部特定运动相结合的工作场所干预措施可能会降低一般办公人群的病假缺勤率和健康相关生产力损失,以及颈部疼痛办公人群的病假缺勤率。