Effectiveness of a Goldilocks work intervention to promote musculoskeletal health among industrial workers – A cluster randomized controlled trial

IF 3.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 ERGONOMICS
{"title":"Effectiveness of a Goldilocks work intervention to promote musculoskeletal health among industrial workers – A cluster randomized controlled trial","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jsr.2024.05.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><em>Introduction:</em> Industrial workers with physically demanding work have increased risk of musculoskeletal pain. The present 12-week Goldilocks Work intervention aimed to organize work among industrial workers to comprise a ‘just right’ ergonomic balance of physical behaviors (i.e., sit, stand and active) intended to promote musculoskeletal health. The paper investigates the effectiveness of the intervention in reducing low back pain after work. Methods: 83 workers across 28 workteams in a biotech organization were recruited. Workteams were randomly allocated to receive the intervention or work as usual (control). Intervention workteams implemented the Goldilocks Work planning tool to organize their work tasks towards a predefined ‘just right’ ergonomic balance (i.e., composition of 60% sitting, 30% standing, 10% active work and hourly task alternation). The primary outcome was low back pain intensity. Secondary outcomes were bodily pain, fatigue, physical exertion, productivity and energy after work measured in the survey, and composition and alternations of physical behaviors measured using wearable sensors. <em>Results:</em> The intervention was delivered almost as planned, with good quality and high adherence among most workteams. However, the intervention did not change physical behaviors towards the intended ‘just right’ ergonomic balance. No significant reduction in low back pain (0.07, CI 95%: −0.68; 0.82), bodily pain (0.10, CI 95%: −0.57; 0.76), tiredness (−0.53, CI 95%: −1.24; 0.19), physical exertion (−0.18, CI 95%: −0.83; 0.48), or improvement in energy (0.39, CI 95%: −1.02; 0.23) or productivity (−0.03, CI 95%: −0.77; 0.72) were found. Conclusion: This Goldilocks Work intervention did not promote musculoskeletal health among industrial workers and did not change physical behaviors as intended. Thus, more research is needed into implementation strategies to change physical behaviors during productive work towards an evidence-based ‘just right’ ergonomic balance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48224,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Safety Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437524000598/pdfft?md5=fa67d76cc2f6bc40559b5781694ea2c8&pid=1-s2.0-S0022437524000598-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Safety Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437524000598","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ERGONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Industrial workers with physically demanding work have increased risk of musculoskeletal pain. The present 12-week Goldilocks Work intervention aimed to organize work among industrial workers to comprise a ‘just right’ ergonomic balance of physical behaviors (i.e., sit, stand and active) intended to promote musculoskeletal health. The paper investigates the effectiveness of the intervention in reducing low back pain after work. Methods: 83 workers across 28 workteams in a biotech organization were recruited. Workteams were randomly allocated to receive the intervention or work as usual (control). Intervention workteams implemented the Goldilocks Work planning tool to organize their work tasks towards a predefined ‘just right’ ergonomic balance (i.e., composition of 60% sitting, 30% standing, 10% active work and hourly task alternation). The primary outcome was low back pain intensity. Secondary outcomes were bodily pain, fatigue, physical exertion, productivity and energy after work measured in the survey, and composition and alternations of physical behaviors measured using wearable sensors. Results: The intervention was delivered almost as planned, with good quality and high adherence among most workteams. However, the intervention did not change physical behaviors towards the intended ‘just right’ ergonomic balance. No significant reduction in low back pain (0.07, CI 95%: −0.68; 0.82), bodily pain (0.10, CI 95%: −0.57; 0.76), tiredness (−0.53, CI 95%: −1.24; 0.19), physical exertion (−0.18, CI 95%: −0.83; 0.48), or improvement in energy (0.39, CI 95%: −1.02; 0.23) or productivity (−0.03, CI 95%: −0.77; 0.72) were found. Conclusion: This Goldilocks Work intervention did not promote musculoskeletal health among industrial workers and did not change physical behaviors as intended. Thus, more research is needed into implementation strategies to change physical behaviors during productive work towards an evidence-based ‘just right’ ergonomic balance.

促进产业工人肌肉骨骼健康的 "金发姑娘 "工作干预措施的效果--分组随机对照试验
介绍:从事体力劳动的产业工人罹患肌肉骨骼疼痛的风险较高。本项为期 12 周的 "金发姑娘 "工作干预措施旨在安排产业工人的工作,使他们的身体行为(即坐、站和活动)达到 "恰到好处 "的人体工程学平衡,从而促进肌肉骨骼健康。本文研究了该干预措施在减少下班后腰痛方面的效果。方法:招募了一家生物技术公司 28 个工作小组的 83 名工人。工作小组被随机分配接受干预或照常工作(对照组)。干预工作组采用金发姑娘工作规划工具来安排工作任务,以达到预定的 "恰到好处 "的人体工学平衡(即 60% 的坐姿、30% 的站姿、10% 的主动工作和每小时的任务交替)。主要结果是腰痛强度。次要结果是调查中测量的身体疼痛、疲劳、体力消耗、工作效率和下班后的精力,以及使用可穿戴传感器测量的身体行为的组成和交替。结果干预措施几乎按计划实施,质量良好,大多数工作团队都很坚持。然而,干预措施并没有改变身体行为,使之达到预期的 "恰到好处 "的人体工程学平衡。腰痛(0.07,CI 95%:-0.68;0.82)、身体疼痛(0.10,CI 95%:-0.57;0.76)、疲倦(-0.53,CI 95%:-1.24;0.19)、体力消耗(-0.18,CI 95%:-0.83;0.48)、精力(0.39,CI 95%:-1.02;0.23)或生产率(-0.03,CI 95%:-0.77;0.72)均未明显减轻。结论这项 "金发工作 "干预措施并没有促进产业工人的肌肉骨骼健康,也没有按照预期改变身体行为。因此,需要对实施策略进行更多研究,以改变生产性工作中的身体行为,实现以证据为基础的 "恰到好处 "的人体工程学平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
174
审稿时长
61 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Safety Research is an interdisciplinary publication that provides for the exchange of ideas and scientific evidence capturing studies through research in all areas of safety and health, including traffic, workplace, home, and community. This forum invites research using rigorous methodologies, encourages translational research, and engages the global scientific community through various partnerships (e.g., this outreach includes highlighting some of the latest findings from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信