A pilot randomised control trial of the effectiveness of a biofeedback mouse in reducing self-reported pain among office workers

Feedback for the prevention and rehabilitation of work-related musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs) remain a challenge despite research aimed at improving their prevention and treatment. Extrinsic feedback has been suggested for the prevention and rehabilitation of WRMSDs to improve sensorimotor control, and ultimately to reduce pain and disability. However, there are few systematic reviews on the effectiveness of extrinsic feedback for WRMSDs.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review investigating the effect of extrinsic feedback for the prevention and rehabilitation of WRMSDs.

METHODS

Five databases (CINAHL, Embase, Ergonomics Abstract, PsycInfo, PubMed) were searched. Studies of various designs assessing the effects of extrinsic feedback during work tasks on three outcomes (function, symptoms, sensorimotor control) in the context of prevention and rehabilitation of WRMSDs were included.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies were included, for a total sample of 3387 participants (including 925 injured) who performed work-related tasks in the workplace (27 studies) or in controlled environments (22 studies). The use of extrinsic feedback was shown to be effective in controlled environments for short-term prevention of functional limitations and sensorimotor alterations (very limited to moderate evidence) and for improving, in injured participants, function, symptoms and sensorimotor control (moderate evidence). In the workplace, it was shown to be effective for short-term prevention of functional limitations (limited evidence). There was conflicting evidence regarding its effect for WRMSD rehabilitation in the workplace.

CONCLUSION

Extrinsic feedback is an interesting complementary tool for the prevention and rehabilitation of WRMSDs in controlled environments. More evidence is needed regarding its effect for the prevention and rehabilitation of WRMSDs in the workplace.

Mode displaying mouse cursors for reducing input language mode confusion: Utility and user attitude evaluation

Users frequently commit typing errors due to input language mode confusion (ILMC) when switching between multiple languages. This study evaluated two mode display cursors (MDCs) as a potential solution to ILMC: the monochrome and color-changing MDCs. Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the two MDCs in different dimensions of usability. Experiment 1 evaluated the effects of MDCs on ILMC and related typing errors and Experiment 2, on self-reported preference, acceptance and annoyance. In Experiment 1, 45 participants were divided into three groups, that each performed multi-language typing using an ordinary mouse cursor and the two MDCs. The color-changing MDC was found to significantly reduce ILMC and related typing errors compared to the ordinary mouse cursor (p < .001). In Experiment 2, 30 participants performed three typical computer tasks using both MDCs. The mean annoyance rating was significantly larger for the color-changing MDC than for the monochrome MDC (p = .037).

Work-break schedules for preventing musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders in healthy workers

BACKGROUND

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a group of musculoskeletal disorders that comprise one of the most common disorders related to occupational sick leave worldwide. Musculoskeletal disorders accounted for 21% to 28% of work absenteeism days in 2017/2018 in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. There are several interventions that may be effective in tackling the high prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among workers, such as physical, cognitive and organisational interventions. In this review, we will focus on work breaks as a measure of primary prevention, which are a type of organisational intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of different work-break schedules for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders in healthy workers, when compared to conventional or alternate work-break schedules.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to April/May 2019. In addition, we searched references of the included studies and of relevant literature reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of work-break interventions for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders among workers. The studies were eligible for inclusion when intervening on work-break frequency, duration and/or type, compared to conventional or an alternate work-break intervention. We included only those studies in which the investigated population included healthy, adult workers, who were free of musculoskeletal complaints during study enrolment, without restrictions to sex or occupation. The primary outcomes were newly diagnosed musculoskeletal disorders, self-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, and productivity or work performance. We considered workload changes as secondary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional study data where required. We performed meta-analyses, where possible, and we assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome of each comparison using the five GRADE considerations.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies (373 workers), four parallel RCTs, one cross-over RCT, and one combined parallel plus cross-over RCT. At least 295 of the employees were female and at least 39 male; for the remaining 39 employees, the sex was not specified in the study trial. The studies investigated different work-break frequencies (five studies) and different work-break types (two studies). None of the studies investigated different work-break durations. We judged all studies to have a high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of self-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue was low; the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of productivity and work performance was very low. The studies were executed in Europe or Northern America, with none from low- to middle-income countries. One study could not be included in the data analyses, because no detailed results have been reported.Changes in the frequency of work breaksThere is low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may not have a considerable effect on musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, when compared with no additional work breaks (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.08; 95% CI -0.35 to 0.18; three studies; 225 participants). Additional breaks may not have a positive effect on productivity or work performance, when compared with no additional work breaks (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.19; three studies; 225 participants; very low-quality evidence).We found low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue (MD 1.80 on a 100-mm VAS scale; 95% CI -41.07 to 64.37; one study; 15 participants), when compared to work breaks as needed (i.e. microbreaks taken at own discretion). There is very low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may have a positive effect on productivity or work performance, when compared to work breaks as needed (MD 542.5 number of words typed per 3-hour recording session; 95% CI 177.22 to 907.78; one study; 15 participants).Additional higher frequency work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue (MD 11.65 on a 100-mm VAS scale; 95% CI -41.07 to 64.37; one study; 10 participants; low-quality evidence), when compared to additional lower frequency work breaks. We found very low-quality evidence that additional higher frequency work breaks may not have a considerable effect on productivity or work performance (MD -83.00 number of words typed per 3-hour recording session; 95% CI -305.27 to 139.27; one study; 10 participants), when compared to additional lower frequency work breaks.Changes in the duration of work breaksNo trials were identified that assessed the effect of different durations of work breaks.Changes in the type of work breakWe found low-quality evidence that active breaks may not have a considerable positive effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue (MD -0.17 on a 1-7 NRS scale; 95% CI -0.71 to 0.37; one study; 153 participants), when compared to passive work breaks.Relaxation work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, when compared to physical work breaks (MD 0.20 on a 1-7 NRS scale; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.82; one study; 97 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-quality evidence that different work-break frequencies may have no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue. For productivity and work performance, evidence was of very low-quality that different work-break frequencies may have a positive effect. For different types of break, there may be no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue according to low-quality evidence. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of frequency, duration and type of work-break interventions among workers, if possible, with much higher sample sizes than the studies included in the current review. Furthermore, work-break interventions should be reconsidered, taking into account worker populations other than office workers, and taking into account the possibility of combining work-break intervention with other interventions such as ergonomic training or counselling, which may may possibly have an effect on musculoskeletal outcomes and work performance.

Ergonomic interventions for preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck among office workers

BACKGROUND

Work-related upper limb and neck musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are one of the most common occupational disorders worldwide. Studies have shown that the percentage of office workers that suffer from MSDs ranges from 20 to 60 per cent. The direct and indirect costs of work-related upper limb MSDs have been reported to be high in Europe, Australia, and the United States. Although ergonomic interventions are likely to reduce the risk of office workers developing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs, the evidence is unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review which was last published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of physical, cognitive and organisational ergonomic interventions, or combinations of those interventions for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs among office workers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Embase, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to 10 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic interventions for preventing work-related upper limb or neck MSDs (or both) among office workers. We only included studies where the baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, was less than 25%.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the interventions and outcomes in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs (2165 workers). We judged one study to have a low risk of bias and the remaining 14 studies to have a high risk of bias due to small numbers of participants and the potential for selection bias.Physical ergonomic interventionsThere is inconsistent evidence for arm supports and alternative computer mouse designs. There is moderate-quality evidence that an arm support with an alternative computer mouse (two studies) reduced the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99), but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck or shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There is moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck or shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not considerably reduced when comparing an alternative computer mouse and a conventional mouse (two studies; neck or shoulder: RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), and also when comparing an arm support with a conventional mouse and a conventional mouse alone (two studies) (neck or shoulder: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 6.98; right upper limb: RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.96).Workstation adjustment (one study) and sit-stand desks (one study) did not have an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort, compared to no intervention.Organisational ergonomic interventionsThere is very low-quality evidence that supplementary breaks (two studies) reduce discomfort of the neck (MD -0.25; 95% CI -0.40 to -0.11), right shoulder or upper arm (MD -0.33; 95% CI -0.46 to -0.19), and right forearm or wrist or hand (MD -0.18; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.08) among data entry workers.Training in ergonomic interventionsThere is low to very low-quality evidence in five studies that participatory and active training interventions may or may not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb or neck or both.Multifaceted ergonomic interventionsFor multifaceted interventions there is one study (very low-quality evidence) that showed no effect on any of the six upper limb pain outcomes measured in that study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found inconsistent evidence that the use of an arm support or an alternative mouse may or may not reduce the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs. For other physical ergonomic interventions there is no evidence of an effect. For organisational interventions, in the form of supplementary breaks, there is very low-quality evidence of an effect on upper limb discomfort. For training and multifaceted interventions there is no evidence of an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions among office workers.

Correlations of Neck/Shoulder Perfusion Characteristics and Pain Symptoms of the Female Office Workers with Sedentary Lifestyle

AIM

Modern office workers are often impacted by chronic neck/shoulder pain. Most of the previous studies which investigated the relationship of the occupational factors and musculoskeletal symptoms had adopted questionnaire survey. In this study the microcirculatory characteristics and perceived symptoms in neck/shoulder region were compared among office workers with sedentary lifestyle.

METHODS

Thirty-seven female office workers were recruited in this study. Microcirculatory flow in neck/shoulder region characterized by the mean blood flow (MMBF value), pulsatile blood flow (PMBF value), and the PMBF/MMBF ratio (perfusion pulsatility, PP) were investigated using Laser Doppler Flowmetry (LDF). A Chinese version of the Standardized Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ) were also administered to collect the information of perceived neck/shoulder symptoms. Correlations between the perfusion characteristics and the individual/occupational factors were analyzed using the Spearman test. The difference of the MMBF values between the low-pain group (pain level≤2) and the high-pain group (pain level>2) were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

There were 81% participants reported neck or shoulder pain symptoms. The duration of shoulder pain was significantly correlated with the workers' age and the duration of employment (p<0.01) (n = 37). While both the MMBF and PMBF values in shoulder region were significantly reduced with the workers' age and the duration of employment (p<0.05) (n = 27). And there was a 54% reduction in the MMBF value of the workers from age of 23 to 47. And the MMBF value of the high-pain group (n = 15) was significantly lower than the value of the low-pain group (n = 15) (p<0.05). The duration of shoulder pain showed a moderately negative correlation with PMBF values (n = 19). Besides, the PP value was moderately correlated with shoulder pain level attributed by the rapid reduction of MMBF values (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the LDF method was used for the first time in the workplace in Taiwan. It was demonstrated that the MMBF in shoulder region were affected by aging effect and towards lower value at higher pain level. Impaired microcirculation caused by age effect, when coupled with sedentary lifestyle, was found to be more likely to evoke ischemia shoulder pain. Further studies are needed to assess current indicator, PP value, and the underlying mechanism of pain caused by sedentary lifestyle.

Effects of mouse slant and desktop position on muscular and postural stresses, subject preference and performance in women aged 18-40 years

This study compared muscular and postural stresses, performance and subject preference in women aged 18-40 years using a standard mouse, a vertical mouse and a slanted mouse in three different computer workstation positions. Four tasks were analysed: pointing, pointing-clicking, pointing-clicking-dragging and grasping-pointing the mouse after typing. Flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) and extensor carpi radialis (ECR) activities were greater using the standard mouse compared to the vertical or slanted mouse. In all cases, the wrist position remained in the comfort zone recommended by standard ISO 11228-3. The vertical mouse was less comfortable and more difficult to use than the other two mice. FDS and ECR activities, shoulder abduction and wrist extension were greater when the mouse was placed next to the keyboard. Performance and subject preference were better with the unrestricted mouse positioning on the desktop. Grasping the mouse after typing was the task that caused the greatest stress. Practitioner Summary: In women, the slanted mouse and the unrestricted mouse positioning on the desktop provide a good blend of stresses, performance and preference. Unrestricted mouse positioning requires no keyboard, which is rare in practice. Placing the mouse in front of the keyboard, rather than next to it, reduced the physical load.

Effectiveness of workplace interventions in the prevention of upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders and symptoms: an update of the evidence

The burden of disabling musculoskeletal pain and injuries (musculoskeletal disorders, MSDs) arising from work-related causes in many workplaces remains substantial. There is little consensus on the most appropriate interventions for MSDs. Our objective was to update a systematic review of workplace-based interventions for preventing and managing upper extremity MSD (UEMSD). We followed a systematic review process developed by the Institute for Work & Health and an adapted best evidence synthesis. 6 electronic databases were searched (January 2008 until April 2013 inclusive) yielding 9909 non-duplicate references. 26 high-quality and medium-quality studies relevant to our research question were combined with 35 from the original review to synthesise the evidence on 30 different intervention categories. There was strong evidence for one intervention category, resistance training, leading to the recommendation: Implementing a workplace-based resistance training exercise programme can help prevent and manage UEMSD and symptoms. The synthesis also revealed moderate evidence for stretching programmes, mouse use feedback and forearm supports in preventing UEMSD or symptoms. There was also moderate evidence for no benefit for EMG biofeedback, job stress management training, and office workstation adjustment for UEMSD and symptoms. Messages are proposed for both these and other intervention categories.

Efficacy of a telerehabilitation intervention programme using biofeedback among computer operators

Computer operators spend long periods of time sitting in a static posture at computer workstations and therefore have an increased exposure to work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSD). The present study is aimed at investigating the feasibility and effectiveness of a tele-biofeedback ergonomic intervention programme among computer operators suffering from WRMSD. Twelve subjects with WRMSD were assigned an ergonomic intervention accompanied by remote tele-biofeedback training, which was practised at their workstations. Evaluations of pain symptoms and locations, body posture and psychosocial characteristics were carried out before and after the intervention in the workplace. The hypothesis was partially verified as it showed improved body position at the workstation and decreased pain in some body parts. Tele-biofeedback, as part of an intervention, appears to be feasible and efficient for computer operators who suffer from WRMSD. This study encourages further research on tele-health within the scope of occupational therapy practice. Practitioner summary: Research concerning tele-health using biofeedback is scarce. The present study analyses the feasibility and partial effectiveness of a tele-biofeedback ergonomic intervention programme for computer operators suffering from WRMSD. The uniqueness and singularity of this study is the usage of remote communication between participants and practitioners through the Internet.

Biomechanics and performance when using a standard and a vertical computer mouse

OBJECTIVE

to compare the biomechanics and performance while using a vertical computer mouse (VM) and a standard mouse (SM).

METHODS

muscle activation (electromyography), forearm movements (electrogoniometers), performance (Fitts' Law test) and satisfaction (questionnaire) of 16 subjects were evaluated.

RESULTS

there were significant differences between the VM and the SM, respectively, on motion (28° vs. 42° pronation, p = 0.001; 5° ulnar vs. 7° radial deviation, p = 0.016) and muscle activity (13% vs. 16% of extensor carpi activity, p = 0.006; 10% vs. 13% extensor digitorum activity, p = 0.001). VM user satisfaction was good (68); however, time to target was longer (4.2 vs. 3.4 s, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

using the VM decreased wrist pronation and lowered wrist extensor muscle activity, but additional training and familiarisation time may be required to improve user performance.

PRACTITIONER SUMMARY

Using a vertical mouse can decrease the exposure to biomechanical risk factors for computer mouse use-related musculoskeletal disorders. Using a vertical computer mouse resulted in less wrist pronation and lower wrist extensor muscle activity. But, training and familiarisation are required.