Search

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are the main cause of pain leading to high economic burden and psychosocial disadvantages. In addition, psychological stress impacts the overall health as well as the quality of life. Elementary school teachers clearly are a cohort with a high risk of MSDs and stress. The 'BelaPrim' study was conducted to determine the physical and psychological conditions of elementary school teachers in Upper Austria and to investigate the influence of physical and psychological parameters on MSDs. Physical and mental strain was determined with the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ) and the 11-item short version of a German work-related behaviour and experience assessment (AVEM), respectively. Despite a high prevalence of MSDs, high scores were found on personality dimensions. Furthermore, qualitative results indicated the need of administrative/pedagogical support. A linear regression model showed that body height (+), work engagement (+), and emotions (−) are predictors for the occurrence of back pain. Practitioner summary: Despite a high proportion of physical complaints, Upper Austrian elementary school teachers show good mental health. Body height, a high work engagement, and low level of emotions are predictors for the occurrence of back pain. Health initiatives for elementary schools should have a multifactorial view to improve teachers' health. Abbreviations: BA: professional ambition; BE: willingness to spend; VB: striving for perfection PE: ability to distance; DF: tendency to resign in case of failure; RT: offensive problem-solving: OP; inner calm and balance; IR: experiencing success at work; EE: life satisfaction; LZ and SU: experiencing social support [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implementing sit/stand workstations in sedentary work environments is a common way to reduce sedentary time, but their medium-term effect on cognitive performance is unclear. To address this circumstance, eighteen office workers participated in a two-arm, randomised controlled cross-over trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02825303), either working at a traditional (sit) or an interventional (sit/stand) workplace for 23 weeks. Cognitive performance (working speed, reaction time, concentration performance, accuracy), workload and relevant covariates (salivary cortisol level, heart rate, physical activity, sitting time) were measured pre- and post-intervention under laboratory conditions. MANOVA and RMANOVA results did not show differences in performance parameters and workload, respectively, between sit/stand and traditional workplace users. Differences in text editing accuracy and cortisol levels for sit/stand workstation users indicate potential connectivity to cognitive parameters which should be further examined with large-scale studies. Practitioner summary: Medium-term effects of working at sit/stand workstations on cognitive performance and workload are unexplored. This randomised controlled trial suggests that cognitive performance and workload are unaffected for sit/stand workstation users after 23 weeks of use. However, accuracy appeared to improve and physiological stress appeared to be altered. Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; IPAQ: International physical activity questionnaire; MET: metabolic equivalent of task; MANOVA: multivariate ANOVA; NASA TLX: NASA task load index; RMANOVA: repeated measures ANOVA [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prolonged sitting is a risk factor for several diseases and the prevalence of worksite-based interventions such as sit-to-stand workstations is increasing. Although their impact on sedentary behaviour has been regularly investigated, the effect of working in alternating body postures on cognitive performance is unclear. To address this uncertainty, 45 students participated in a two-arm, randomised controlled cross-over trial under laboratory conditions. Subjects executed validated cognitive tests (working speed, reaction time, concentration performance) either in sitting or alternating working postures on two separate days (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02863731). MANOVA results showed no significant difference in cognitive performance between trials executed in alternating, standing or sitting postures. Perceived workload did not differ between sitting and alternating days. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant learning effects regarding concentration performance and working speed for both days. These results suggest that working posture did not affect cognitive performance in the short term. Practitioner Summary: Prior reports indicated health-related benefits based on alternated (sit/stand) body postures. Nevertheless, their effect on cognitive performance is unknown. This randomised controlled trial showed that working in alternating body postures did not influence reaction time, concentration performance, working speed or workload perception in the short term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]