Effects of a Physical Therapist Led Workplace Personal-Fitness Management Program for Manufacturing Industry Workers: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of online physical therapy on workplace accident-related outcomes in nursing care worker: study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

According to the 2017 data, occupational accidents are more common in social welfare facilities compared with other industries; in particular, the number of occupational accidents resulting in four or more days of absence from work due to low back pain (LBP) or falls has increased and is considered problematic. Although physical therapy has been demonstrated to be effective in preventing LBP and falls in older adults living in the community, no randomised controlled trials have examined whether individual online physical therapy can prevent LBP and falls in nursing care workers (NCW).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A total of 120 NCW aged 20 years or older will be randomly assigned to an online individualised therapy group (ITG) or usual group (UG) after obtaining informed consent. We defined an NCW as a person who assists disabled and elderly persons with eating, bathing and toileting activities in social welfare facilities. We will follow-up the participants 12 months after the start of the intervention and compare the results at 3, 6 and 12 months. The primary endpoint will be the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); ITG participants will receive professional advice on LBP and musculoskeletal problems from a physical therapist via online interview and email as often as they wish over a 6-month period; UG participants will only have access to brochures and video feeds related to LBP and fall prevention. Owing to the nature of the study, blinding the participants and interventionists is not possible; however, the outcomes will be assessed via a web-based questionnaire to prevent detection bias. The null hypothesis is that there is no clinically important difference in the primary outcome between the two treatment groups and that a decrease in the ODI score of at least 20% is clinically meaningful.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Ethics Committee of the Japanese Society of Occupational Medicine approved the protocol of this study. The results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

jRCT1070210128.

Workplace interventions that aim to improve employee health and well-being in male-dominated industries: a systematic review

The published evidence on whether workplace health and well-being interventions are as effective in male-dominated industries compared with mixed-gender environments has not been synthesised. We performed a systematic review of workplace interventions aimed at improving employee health and well-being in male-dominated industries. We searched Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Database and Web of Science for articles describing workplace interventions in male-dominated industries that address employee health and well-being. The primary outcome was to determine the effectiveness of the intervention and the process evaluation (intervention delivery and adherence). To assess the quality of evidence, Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias Tool was used. Due to the heterogeneity of reported outcomes, meta-analysis was performed for only some outcomes and a narrative synthesis with albatross plots was presented. After full-text screening, 35 studies met the eligibility criteria. Thirty-two studies delivered the intervention face-to-face, while two were delivered via internet and one using postal mail. Intervention adherence ranged from 50% to 97%, dependent on mode of delivery and industry. 17 studies were considered low risk of bias. Albatross plots indicated some evidence of positive associations, particularly for interventions focusing on musculoskeletal disorders. There was little evidence of intervention effect on body mass index and systolic or diastolic blood pressure. Limited to moderate evidence of beneficial effects was found for workplace health and well-being interventions conducted within male-dominated industries. Such interventions in the workplace can be effective, despite a different culture in male-dominated compared with mixed industries, but are dependent on delivery, industry and outcome. CRD42019161283.

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

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.