{"title":"对支持工作场所腰痛自我管理的数字健康干预措施进行系统审查。","authors":"Minghao Chen, Valerie Sparkes, Liba Sheeran","doi":"10.1177/20552076251336281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition in working populations, imposing significant individual, organisational, and societal burdens, including reduced quality of life, impaired work performance, and high healthcare costs. Digital health interventions (DHIs) offer scalable solutions for self-managing LBP in workplace settings, yet their tailoring, integration, and effectiveness remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of DHIs in supporting LBP self-management in workplace environments. It examines intervention components, tailoring methods, integration with occupational health (OH) pathways, and their impact on clinical and work-related outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, following PRISMA guidelines. Randomised controlled trials evaluating DHIs for workplace LBP were included. Data extraction focused on intervention characteristics, tailoring approaches, and primary outcomes, including pain intensity, disability, and physical performance. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias and GRADE frameworks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies were included, featuring DHIs delivered via web-based platforms or mobile applications. Interventions incorporated exercise, ergonomics education, and work activity modification. Only one study used a tailored approach based on theoretical frameworks and individualised work classifications. Moderate-quality evidence supported improvements in pain, disability, and physical performance, but effects on quality of life, psychosocial factors, and work outcomes were inconsistent. Integration with occupational health pathways was absent in all studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The lack of tailoring and integration within occupational health systems limits the scalability and impact of DHIs for workplace LBP. Future research should focus on personalised, theory-driven interventions and systemic alignment with occupational health policies to enhance their feasibility, implementation, and long-term outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51333,"journal":{"name":"DIGITAL HEALTH","volume":"11 ","pages":"20552076251336281"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12117239/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic review of digital health interventions to support self-management of low back pain in the workplace.\",\"authors\":\"Minghao Chen, Valerie Sparkes, Liba Sheeran\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20552076251336281\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition in working populations, imposing significant individual, organisational, and societal burdens, including reduced quality of life, impaired work performance, and high healthcare costs. Digital health interventions (DHIs) offer scalable solutions for self-managing LBP in workplace settings, yet their tailoring, integration, and effectiveness remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of DHIs in supporting LBP self-management in workplace environments. It examines intervention components, tailoring methods, integration with occupational health (OH) pathways, and their impact on clinical and work-related outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, following PRISMA guidelines. Randomised controlled trials evaluating DHIs for workplace LBP were included. Data extraction focused on intervention characteristics, tailoring approaches, and primary outcomes, including pain intensity, disability, and physical performance. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias and GRADE frameworks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies were included, featuring DHIs delivered via web-based platforms or mobile applications. Interventions incorporated exercise, ergonomics education, and work activity modification. Only one study used a tailored approach based on theoretical frameworks and individualised work classifications. Moderate-quality evidence supported improvements in pain, disability, and physical performance, but effects on quality of life, psychosocial factors, and work outcomes were inconsistent. Integration with occupational health pathways was absent in all studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The lack of tailoring and integration within occupational health systems limits the scalability and impact of DHIs for workplace LBP. Future research should focus on personalised, theory-driven interventions and systemic alignment with occupational health policies to enhance their feasibility, implementation, and long-term outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DIGITAL HEALTH\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"20552076251336281\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12117239/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DIGITAL HEALTH\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076251336281\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIGITAL HEALTH","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076251336281","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:腰痛(LBP)是工作人群中的一种普遍疾病,给个人、组织和社会带来了巨大的负担,包括生活质量下降、工作表现受损和高医疗成本。数字健康干预(DHIs)为在工作场所环境中自我管理LBP提供了可扩展的解决方案,但其定制、整合和有效性尚不清楚。目的:本系统评价了DHIs在支持工作环境中LBP自我管理方面的有效性。它检查干预成分,裁剪方法,与职业健康(OH)途径的整合,以及它们对临床和工作相关结果的影响。方法:系统检索PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library和Web of Science,遵循PRISMA指南。纳入评估DHIs对工作场所LBP的随机对照试验。数据提取侧重于干预特征、裁剪方法和主要结果,包括疼痛强度、残疾和身体表现。使用Cochrane风险偏倚和GRADE框架评估证据质量。结果:包括五项研究,通过网络平台或移动应用程序提供DHIs。干预措施包括锻炼、人体工程学教育和工作活动调整。只有一项研究采用了基于理论框架和个性化工作分类的量身定制方法。中等质量的证据支持疼痛、残疾和身体表现的改善,但对生活质量、社会心理因素和工作结果的影响不一致。所有研究都缺乏与职业健康途径的整合。结论:职业卫生系统缺乏定制和整合,限制了DHIs对工作场所LBP的可扩展性和影响。未来的研究应侧重于个性化、理论驱动的干预措施以及与职业卫生政策的系统性协调,以提高其可行性、实施和长期结果。
Systematic review of digital health interventions to support self-management of low back pain in the workplace.
Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition in working populations, imposing significant individual, organisational, and societal burdens, including reduced quality of life, impaired work performance, and high healthcare costs. Digital health interventions (DHIs) offer scalable solutions for self-managing LBP in workplace settings, yet their tailoring, integration, and effectiveness remain unclear.
Objective: This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of DHIs in supporting LBP self-management in workplace environments. It examines intervention components, tailoring methods, integration with occupational health (OH) pathways, and their impact on clinical and work-related outcomes.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, following PRISMA guidelines. Randomised controlled trials evaluating DHIs for workplace LBP were included. Data extraction focused on intervention characteristics, tailoring approaches, and primary outcomes, including pain intensity, disability, and physical performance. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias and GRADE frameworks.
Results: Five studies were included, featuring DHIs delivered via web-based platforms or mobile applications. Interventions incorporated exercise, ergonomics education, and work activity modification. Only one study used a tailored approach based on theoretical frameworks and individualised work classifications. Moderate-quality evidence supported improvements in pain, disability, and physical performance, but effects on quality of life, psychosocial factors, and work outcomes were inconsistent. Integration with occupational health pathways was absent in all studies.
Conclusions: The lack of tailoring and integration within occupational health systems limits the scalability and impact of DHIs for workplace LBP. Future research should focus on personalised, theory-driven interventions and systemic alignment with occupational health policies to enhance their feasibility, implementation, and long-term outcomes.