Introduction Office employees are exposed to hazardous levels of sedentary work. Interventions that integrate health promotion and health protection elements are needed to advance the health of ...sedentary workers. This study tested an integrated intervention on occupational sedentary/physical activity behaviors, cardiometabolic disease biomarkers, musculoskeletal discomfort, and work productivity. Design Two-group, RCT. Data were collected between January and August 2014. Setting/participants Overweight/obese adults working in sedentary desk jobs were randomized to: (1) a health protection–only group (HPO, n =27); or (2) an integrated health protection/health promotion group (HP/HP, n =27). Intervention HPO participants received an ergonomic workstation optimization intervention and three e-mails/week promoting rest breaks and posture variation. HP/HP participants received the HPO intervention plus access to a seated activity permissive workstation. Main outcome measures Occupational sedentary and physical activity behaviors (primary outcomes), cardiometabolic health outcomes, musculoskeletal discomfort, and work productivity (secondary outcomes) were measured at baseline and post-intervention (16 weeks). Results The HP/HP group increased occupational light intensity physical activity over the HPO group and used the activity permissive workstations 50 minutes/work day. Significant associations were observed between activity permissive workstation adherence and improvements in several cardiometabolic biomarkers (weight, total fat mass, resting heart rate, body fat percentage) and work productivity outcomes (concentration at work, days missed because of health problems). Conclusions The HP/HP group increased occupational physical activity and greater activity permissive workstation adherence was associated with improved health and work productivity outcomes. These findings are important for employers interested in advancing the well-being of sedentary office workers. Trial registration This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02071420.
To evaluate the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among eye care physicians compared with family medicine physicians.
Case control study.
Ophthalmologists and optometrists at the University of ...Iowa and Mayo Clinic (participants) and family medicine physicians at the University of Iowa and Mayo Clinic (controls).
An electronic survey was e-mailed to all subjects.
The prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms between eye care providers and family medicine physicians (control group).
One hundred eight-six surveys were completed by 94 eye care physicians and 92 family medicine physicians with a response rate of 99% and 80%, respectively. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with regard to mean age, gender, body mass index, years with current employer, or years in practice. Eye care providers, compared with their family medicine colleagues, reported a higher prevalence of neck (46% vs 21%; P<0.01), hand/wrist pain (17% vs 7%; P = 0.03), and lower back pain (26% vs 9%; P<0.01). A greater proportion of eye care physicians classified their job as a high-strain job (high demand, low control; 31% vs 20%) and a lower proportion classified their job as an active job (high demand, high control; 24% vs 47%; p = 0.01). Several job factors reported by eye care providers to contribute to musculoskeletal symptoms included performing the same task repeatedly, working in awkward/cramped positions, working in the same position for long periods, and bending/twisting the back (all P<0.01).
In this survey, the study group, composed of ophthalmologists and optometrists, had a higher prevalence of neck, hand/wrist, and lower back pain compared with family medicine physicians; repetitive tasks, prolonged or awkward/cramped positions, and bending/twisting were contributory factors. Given the ramifications of these findings, future efforts should concentrate on modifications to the eye care providers' work environment to prevent or alleviate musculoskeletal disorders and their personal and socioeconomic burden.
PDF