Normative reference values and physical factors associated with work ability: a cross-sectional observational study

Association between physical fitness and perceived work ability among Finnish population: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

This cross-sectional study aims to examine association between different components of physical fitness and perceived work ability among working age population.

METHODS

The population-based study sample included 2050 participants aged 18-74 from the Finnish national Health 2011 study. Physical fitness was assessed by the single leg stand test, the modified push-up test, the vertical jump test and the six-minute walk test, and perceived work ability was assessed via interview. Logistic regression was used for examining the associations between physical fitness and work ability.

RESULTS

After adjusting for potential confounders (age, sex, marital status, educational level, work characteristics, total physical activity, daily smoking, BMI and number of diseases), odds ratios indicated that good work ability was more likely among those who had better balance in single leg stand test (OR = 1.54; 95% CI 1.07-2.24), and who belonged in the high fitness thirds in six-minute walking test (OR = 2.08; 95% CI 1.24-3.49) and in vertical jump test (OR = 2.51; 95% CI 1.23-5.12) compared to lowest third. Moreover, moderate (OR = 1.76; 95% CI 1.02-3.05) to high fitness (OR = 2.87; 95% CI 1.40-5.92) in modified push-up test increased the likelihood of good work ability compared to lowest third.

CONCLUSION

These study results indicate that good musculoskeletal as well as cardiorespiratory fitness are associated with better perceived work ability. Promoting physical fitness in individual and societal level may be potential targets for maintaining good work ability in working age population.

Association between health-related physical fitness indicators and working ability: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Work ability (WA) reflects a balance between work demands and an individual's ability to meet them. It is influenced by several occupational and health-related factors including the individual's physical fitness (PF). Therefore, the aim of the present study was to provide an overview of the possible relationship between PF measures and the individual's WA.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies published up to December 1, 2022 and available in PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science databases, was performed. Results have been summarized according to the specific PF parameter explored.

RESULTS

The 14 reviewed studies, enrolling 47 to 1005 workers, all showed a satisfactory methodological quality. Some positive evidence emerged for a possible association between changes in aerobic capacity, walking speed, balance, flexibility, muscle strength, and WA perception. However, the limited number of studies, their cross-sectional design, the different PF performance indicators, populations, and job tasks explored prevented definite conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Future longitudinal studies should be planned to confirm such positive results and identify PF indicators better predictive for changes in the WA of employees engaged in specific job tasks, particularly in physically demanding activities. This may be helpful to include PF performance tests in occupational health practice as an integrated part of risk assessment and management strategies as well as in health and well-being promotion plans.

Indexes for motor performance assessment in job integration/reintegration of people with neuromuscular disorders: A systematic review

Individuals of working age affected by neuromuscular disorders frequently experience issues with their capacity to get employment, difficulty at work, and premature work interruption. Anyway, individuals with a disability could be able to return to work, thanks to targeted rehabilitation as well as ergonomic and training interventions. Biomechanical and physiological indexes are important for evaluating motor and muscle performance and determining the success of job integration initiatives. Therefore, it is necessary to determinate which indexes from the literature are the most appropriate to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the return-to-work programs. To identify current and future valuable indexes, this study uses a systematic literature review methodology for selecting articles published from 2011 to March 30, 2021 from Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed and for checking the eligibility and the potential bias risks. The most used indexes for motor performance assessment were identified, categorized, and analyzed. This review revealed a great potential for kinetic, kinematic, surface electromyography, postural, and other biomechanical and physiological indexes to be used for job integration/reintegration. Indeed, wearable miniaturized sensors, kinematic, kinetic, and sEMG-based indexes can be used to control collaborative robots, classify residual motor functions, and assess pre-post-rehabilitation and ergonomic therapies.

Validation of the work ability index-single item and the pain disability index-work item in patients with chronic low back pain

PURPOSE

A cross-sectional and longitudinal study was conducted to analyse construct validity, responsiveness, and Minimal Clinically Important Change (MCIC) in the Work Ability Score (WAS) and Pain Disability Index Work item (PDI-W) in patients with Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP).

METHOD

Construct validity was assessed by testing predefined hypotheses. Responsiveness and MCIC were measured with an anchor-based method. The area under the receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) and the optimal cut-off point were calculated. Smallest Detectable Change (SDC) was calculated to determine measurement error.

RESULTS

In total, 1502 patients (age 18-65 years) with CLBP were included. For validity of the WAS and PDI-W, respectively, seven and six out of 10 hypotheses were not rejected. The WAS (n = 355) was responsive to change with an AUC of 0.70. MCIC was 1.5 point, SDC_individual 4.9, and SDC_group 0.3. MCICs were 4.5, 1.5, and - 0.5 points for, respectively, low, middle, and high scoring baseline groups. The PDI-W (n = 297) was responsive to change with an AUC of 0.80. MCIC was - 2.5 points, SDC_individual 5.2, and SDC_group 0.3. MCICs were - 0.5, - 2.5, and - 4.5 points for, respectively, low, middle, and high scoring baseline groups.

CONCLUSION

Construct validity of the WAS and PDI-W was insufficient in this patient sample. The WAS and PDI-W are responsive to change. On average, improvements of 1.5 point (WAS) and  - 2.5 points (PDI-W) were interpreted as clinically important. However, MCICs are also baseline dependent. Due to a risk of measurement error, at the individual level change scores should be interpreted with caution.