Schenk R J, Doran R L, Stachura J J
Department of Physicial Therapy, D'Youville College, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Oct 1;21(19):2183-8; discussion 2189. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199610010-00001.
This study involved a post-test only, control group design.
To analyze the learning effects of back education programs (video and classroom learning).
Previous research has examined lost work time and workers compensation costs but has not addressed the learning effects of back schools. This study used the American Back School as the education intervention. The American Back School teaches students to maintain the lumbarlordosis while lifting.
The subjects (n = 205) were assigned to three groups through modified randomization. Three employees who previously sustained low back injury were placed in the back school group. The back school group, Group 1, (n = 74) attended a back school program that included cognitive learning strategies and practice in correct lifting. A video group, Group II, (n =64) viewed a similar program that consisted of spinal anatomy and biomechanics and instruction in correct lifting technique. A control group, Group III, (n = 67) received no back education. One week after the education intervention, 145 of the subjects from the three groups had the lumbar lordosis measured with a flexible ruler while assuming a lifting position. The ruler was placed over the lumbar spinous processes, and the lordotic angle was calculated A 12-item multiple choice test and a 10-item. Likert scale were administrated to 199 of the subjects in the three groups to determine the cognitive learning effect and the perceived relevance of the program, respectively.
Multivariate analysis of variance was used and demonstrated significant differences between the back school group and the control group on the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective measures at the 0.001 level. No significant differences were found between the video and control groups on the measures with additional univariate testing.
The results indicate that the back school is an effective tool for influencing lifting posture and conveying information regarding spinal mechanics and lifting technique. In addition, the back school videos may not be an effective means of preventing low back injury.
本研究采用仅后测的对照组设计。
分析背部教育项目(视频和课堂学习)的学习效果。
以往研究探讨了误工时间和工人赔偿成本,但未涉及背部学校的学习效果。本研究采用美国背部学校作为教育干预措施。美国背部学校教导学生在提举时保持腰椎前凸。
通过改良随机化将205名受试者分为三组。三名既往有下背部损伤的员工被分入背部学校组。第一组背部学校组(n = 74)参加了背部学校项目,该项目包括认知学习策略和正确提举练习。第二组视频组(n = 64)观看了一个类似的项目,内容包括脊柱解剖学和生物力学以及正确提举技术的指导。第三组对照组(n = 67)未接受背部教育。教育干预一周后,三组中的145名受试者在处于提举姿势时用软尺测量腰椎前凸。尺子置于腰椎棘突上方,计算前凸角度。对三组中的199名受试者分别进行了一项12项选择题测试和一项10项李克特量表测试,以确定认知学习效果和该项目的感知相关性。
采用多变量方差分析,结果显示背部学校组与对照组在认知、心理运动和情感测量方面在0.001水平上存在显著差异。经额外单变量检验,视频组与对照组在这些测量指标上未发现显著差异。
结果表明,背部学校是影响提举姿势和传达有关脊柱力学及提举技术信息的有效工具。此外,背部学校视频可能不是预防下背部损伤的有效手段。