Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2024 Oct 1;50(7):555-566. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.4184. Epub 2024 Aug 22.
This study evaluated the effectiveness of the promotion of postural shift intervention using a dynamic seat cushion on the 6-month incidence of neck and low-back pain among high-risk office workers.
In a cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT), 133 office workers were randomly assigned, at cluster level, to intervention (N=67) and control (N=66) groups. The intervention group received a dynamic seat cushion to encourage postural shifts during sitting, while the control group received a placebo seat pad. Primary outcomes were 6-month incidence of neck and low-back pain. Secondary outcomes included sitting discomfort, pain intensity, disability, and trunk muscle performance. Analyses utilized Cox proportional hazard models.
During the 6-month period, 15% of participants in the intervention group developed neck pain and 10% developed low-back pain. For the control group, this was 65% and 59%, respectively. Hazard rate (HR) ratios, after adjusting for biopsychosocial factors, indicated a protective effect of the intervention for neck pain [HR 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.39, P<0.001] and low-back pain (HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07-0.35, P<0.001). The intervention group demonstrated a significant reduction in sitting discomfort and improvement in trunk muscle performance compared to the control group (P<0.05). However, the intervention did not reduce pain and disability in individuals experiencing pain compared to the control group.
The dynamic seat cushion effectively reduced the incidence of neck and low-back pain by promoting postural shifts. These findings suggest that the key factor in reducing the risk of developing neck and low-back pain is the facilitation of postural shifts during sitting, which can potentially be achieved with other dynamic interventions designed to reduce prolonged and static sitting among office workers.
本研究评估了使用动态坐垫促进姿势转换干预对高风险办公室工作人员 6 个月颈项痛和下背痛发生率的效果。
在一项集群随机对照试验（RCT）中，133 名办公室工作人员按集群水平被随机分配至干预组（N=67）和对照组（N=66）。干预组使用动态坐垫来鼓励坐姿时的姿势转换，而对照组使用安慰剂坐垫。主要结局是 6 个月颈项痛和下背痛的发生率。次要结局包括坐姿不适、疼痛强度、残疾和躯干肌肉表现。分析采用 Cox 比例风险模型。
在 6 个月期间，干预组有 15%的参与者出现颈项痛，10%的参与者出现下背痛。而对照组中，这一比例分别为 65%和 59%。调整生物心理社会因素后，风险率（HR）比值表明干预对颈项痛（HR 0.19，95%置信区间[CI] 0.09-0.39，P<0.001）和下背痛（HR 0.16，95% CI 0.07-0.35，P<0.001）具有保护作用。与对照组相比，干预组的坐姿不适显著减轻，躯干肌肉表现明显改善（P<0.05）。然而，与对照组相比，干预并没有减轻疼痛和残疾程度。
通过促进姿势转换，动态坐垫有效降低了颈项痛和下背痛的发生率。这些发现表明，减少颈项痛和下背痛风险的关键因素是促进坐姿时的姿势转换，这可以通过其他旨在减少办公室工作人员长时间静态坐姿的动态干预来实现。
