Effectiveness of combined aerobic exercise and neck-specific exercise compared to neck-specific exercise alone on work ability in neck pain patients: a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial.

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health Pub Date : 2021-10-01 Epub Date: 2021-03-17 DOI:10.1007/s00420-021-01684-0

Amira Daher, Gali Dar, Rafael Carel

{"title":"Effectiveness of combined aerobic exercise and neck-specific exercise compared to neck-specific exercise alone on work ability in neck pain patients: a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Amira Daher, Gali Dar, Rafael Carel","doi":"10.1007/s00420-021-01684-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare the effect of combined aerobic exercise (AE) and neck-specific exercise to neck-specific exercise alone on the work ability of individuals complaining of neck pain.Method: Secondary analysis of data from a previous randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare AE and neck-specific exercise (AE group, n = 69) to neck-specific exercise alone (control group, n = 70). The Work Ability Index (WAI) was administered after the 6-week intervention, and Global Rating of Change (GROC) was assessed after the 6-week intervention and at 12- and 24-week follow-ups.Results: Repeated-measure analyses of variance between groups indicated a significant time × group interaction on the GROC at 12- and 24-week follow-ups. The AE group showed better improvement on the GROC (mean ± SD) from 6 to 24 weeks than controls: 4.7(± 0.12) to 5.3 (± 0.13) vs. 4.4 (± 0.13) to 4.1(± 0.13), respectively, (P < 0.001). There was a significant group × time interaction on the WAI (P < 0.001): the AE group showed better improvement (mean ± SD) from baseline to 6-weeks than controls: 34.9 (± 4.4) to 39.2 (± 3.6) vs. 34.4 (± 4.9) to 35.8 (± 4.9), respectively, (P < 0.001). Work ability of participants with poor/moderate baseline scores improved more (P < 0.001) than those with good/excellent baseline scores (P = 0.48).Conclusions: Combining moderate AE and neck-specific exercise improved the work ability of patients with NP more than neck-specific exercise alone. The combination should be recommended in health promotion programs, particularly for workers with low baseline work ability.Clinical trial: Registered at ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT02451267; date of registration: 21 May 2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home.","PeriodicalId":13761,"journal":{"name":"International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health","volume":"94 7","pages":"1739-1750"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00420-021-01684-0","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-021-01684-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/3/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effect of combined aerobic exercise (AE) and neck-specific exercise to neck-specific exercise alone on the work ability of individuals complaining of neck pain.

Method: Secondary analysis of data from a previous randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare AE and neck-specific exercise (AE group, n = 69) to neck-specific exercise alone (control group, n = 70). The Work Ability Index (WAI) was administered after the 6-week intervention, and Global Rating of Change (GROC) was assessed after the 6-week intervention and at 12- and 24-week follow-ups.

Results: Repeated-measure analyses of variance between groups indicated a significant time × group interaction on the GROC at 12- and 24-week follow-ups. The AE group showed better improvement on the GROC (mean ± SD) from 6 to 24 weeks than controls: 4.7(± 0.12) to 5.3 (± 0.13) vs. 4.4 (± 0.13) to 4.1(± 0.13), respectively, (P < 0.001). There was a significant group × time interaction on the WAI (P < 0.001): the AE group showed better improvement (mean ± SD) from baseline to 6-weeks than controls: 34.9 (± 4.4) to 39.2 (± 3.6) vs. 34.4 (± 4.9) to 35.8 (± 4.9), respectively, (P < 0.001). Work ability of participants with poor/moderate baseline scores improved more (P < 0.001) than those with good/excellent baseline scores (P = 0.48).

Conclusions: Combining moderate AE and neck-specific exercise improved the work ability of patients with NP more than neck-specific exercise alone. The combination should be recommended in health promotion programs, particularly for workers with low baseline work ability.

Clinical trial: Registered at ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT02451267; date of registration: 21 May 2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home.

查看原文本刊更多论文

联合有氧运动和颈部专项运动与单独颈部专项运动对颈部疼痛患者工作能力的影响:一项随机对照试验数据的二次分析

目的:比较有氧运动联合颈部专项运动与单独颈部专项运动对颈部疼痛患者工作能力的影响。方法:对既往随机对照试验资料进行二次分析，比较AE联合颈部特异性运动(AE组，n = 69)与单纯颈部特异性运动(对照组，n = 70)。干预6周后给予工作能力指数(WAI)，干预6周后以及12周和24周随访时评估全球变化评级(GROC)。结果:组间方差的重复测量分析表明，在12周和24周的随访中，GROC存在显著的时间×组相互作用。AE组在6 ~ 24周的GROC (mean±SD)改善优于对照组:分别为4.7(±0.12)~ 5.3(±0.13)和4.4(±0.13)~ 4.1(±0.13)。(P)结论:适度AE与颈部特异性运动相结合比单独颈部特异性运动更能改善NP患者的工作能力。应在健康促进计划中推荐这种组合，特别是对于基线工作能力较低的工人。临床试验:在ClinicalTrial.gov注册:NCT02451267;注册日期:2015年5月21日。https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home。

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

International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

5.60

自引率

6.70%

发文量

127

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health publishes Editorials, Review Articles, Original Articles, and Letters to the Editor. It welcomes any manuscripts dealing with occupational or ambient environmental problems, with a special interest in research at the interface of occupational health and clinical medicine. The scope ranges from Biological Monitoring to Dermatology, from Fibers and Dust to Human Toxicology, from Nanomaterials and Ultra-fine Dust to Night- and Shift Work, from Psycho-mental Distress and Burnout to Vibrations. A complete list of topics can be found on the right-hand side under For authors and editors. In addition, all papers should be based on present-day standards and relate to: -Clinical and epidemiological studies on morbidity and mortality -Clinical epidemiological studies on the parameters relevant to the estimation of health risks -Human experimental studies on environmental health effects. Animal experiments are only acceptable if relevant to pathogenic aspects. -Methods for studying the topics mentioned above.