Search

© 2020 The Author(s). Background: This study uses the RE-AIM framework to provide a process evaluation of a workplace-based cluster randomised trial comparing an ergonomic plus exercise intervention to an ergonomic plus health promotion intervention; and to highlight variations across organisations; and consider the implications of the findings for intervention translation. Method: This study applied the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) methodology to examine the interventions' implementation and to explore the extent to which differences between participating organisations contributed to the variations in findings. Qualitative and quantitative data collected from individual participants, research team observations and organisations were interrogated to report on the five RE-AIM domains. Results: Overall reach was 22.7% but varied across organisations (range 9 to 83%). Participants were generally representative of the recruitment pool though more females (n = 452 or 59%) were recruited than were in the pool (49%). Effectiveness measures (health-related productivity loss and neck pain) varied across all organisations, with no clear pattern emerging to indicate the source of the variation. Organisation-level adoption (66%) and staffing level adoption (91%) were high. The interventions were implemented with minimal protocol variations and high staffing consistency, but organisations varied in their provision of resources (e.g. training space, seniority of liaisons). Mean adherence of participants to the EET intervention was 56% during the intervention period, but varied from 41 to 71% across organisations. At 12 months, 15% of participants reported regular EET adherence. Overall mean (SD) adherence to EHP was 56% (29%) across organisations during the intervention period (range 28 to 77%), with 62% of participants reporting regular adherence at 12 months. No organisations continued the interventions after the follow-up period. Conclus

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.

BACKGROUND: While strength training for the neck and shoulder muscles may be effective in reducing headache, the optimal combination of exercise frequency and duration is unknown. This study investigates the effect of different time-wise combinations of one weekly hour of strength training for the neck and shoulder muscles on headache frequency, intensity, and use of analgesics.METHODS: A total of 573 office workers were randomly allocated at the cluster-level to five groups; 3 × 20 min a week of minimally supervised (3MS), 1 × 60 (1WS), 3 × 20 (3WS) or 9 × 7 (9WS) min a week of supervised high-intensity strength training for 20 weeks, or to a reference group without training (REF). Headache frequency, intensity, and use of analgesics in relation to headache were determined by questionnaire at baseline and follow-up.RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis showed reduced headache frequency and intensity of approximately 50% in all training groups compared with REF at 20-week follow-up (P < 0.001). Use of analgesics was lower in the supervised training groups (1WS, 3WS and 9WS), but not in the group with minimal training supervision (3MS), compared with REF at follow-up.CONCLUSION: One hour of specific strength training - regardless of the distribution during the week - effectively reduced both headache frequency and intensity in office workers. Thus, a large time-wise flexibility exists when implementing specific strength training at the workplace. However, only supervised training led to a reduction in use of analgesics for headache.

Objective: Office workers have a high prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions. This can be a significant economic burden due to health-related productivity loss. Individual and work-related factors related to office worker health-related productivity were investigated. Methods: A survey including the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire, which estimated productivity loss, also recorded individual and work-related factors with potential associations with health-related productivity. Muscle function and workstation ergonomics were examined through physical assessments. Linear models investigated the relationships between these factors and health-related productivity. Results: Significant factors identified were occupational category (0.001