Dalarna University's logo and link to the university's website

du.sePublications
System disruptions
There are recurring service disruptions on some of the search portals due to high traffic. We are working to resolve the issue, you may temporarily encounter an error message.
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • chicago-author-date
  • chicago-note-bibliography
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The effect of ergonomic intervention on neck/shoulder and low back pain
Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1697-9781
2007 (English)In: Work: A journal of Prevention, Assessment and rehabilitation, ISSN 1051-9815, E-ISSN 1875-9270, Vol. 28, no 4, p. 313-323Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of two types of ergonomic intervention on pain and pain-related disability in the neck/ shoulder and low back regions. A cohort of 492 subjects of various occupations with non-specific neck/shoulder or low back pain was followed over a five to six year period. The study subjects were classified into four intervention groups: no ergonomic intervention, educational worksite intervention, workplace intervention, and combined workplace and educational worksite intervention. The group with no ergonomic intervention was used as the reference group. The changes in pain intensity and pain-related disability from baseline to follow-up in each of the three groups with intervention were compared to the changes in the reference group. During the follow-up, 39% of the subjects had received ergonomic intervention. The average change in pain intensity and pain-related disability was smaller in the educational worksite intervention group than in the reference group. The average reduction of pain intensity and pain-related disability did not differ between the two other intervention groups and the reference group. Thus, for subjects still at work, ergonomic intervention seemed to be ineffective for reducing neck/ shoulder and low back pain and pain-related disability. © 2007 IOS Press. All rights reserved.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2007. Vol. 28, no 4, p. 313-323
Keywords [en]
Adult; Cohort Studies; Female; Human Engineering; Humans; Low Back Pain; Male; Middle Aged; Neck Pain; Treatment Outcome; adult; article; controlled study; disease severity; ergonomics; female; follow up; human; low back pain; major clinical study; male; neck pain; occupational health; outcome assessment; pain assessment; patient education; physical disability; shoulder pain; work capacity; workload; workplace
National Category
Occupational Health and Environmental Health Physiotherapy Public Health, Global Health and Social Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:du-51749Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-34249749851OAI: oai:DiVA.org:du-51749DiVA, id: diva2:2014235
Available from: 2025-11-17 Created: 2025-11-17 Last updated: 2025-11-18Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Work and neck/shoulder pain: risk and prognostic factors
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Work and neck/shoulder pain: risk and prognostic factors
2006 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

This thesis presents the results from a population-based cohort study on risk and prognostic factors for neck/shoulder pain. The four papers in the thesis were based on a four to six year follow-up of both the cases and the referents from the MUSIC-Norrtälje baseline study, n = 2329. The main goals of this thesis were 1) to identify work-related exposures involved in the onset, and 2) to identify work- related exposures of importance for the prognosis of neck/shoulder pain. 

In Paper I, the study group consisted of employed subjects who at baseline and follow-up reported consistently pain in either the neck/shoulder or low back region. Four groups were identified: solely neck/shoulder pain, solely low back pain, concurrent neck/shoulder and low back pain, and migrating neck/shoulder and low back pain, n = 817. The results showed that the odds ratio for sickness absence was 1.69 (95% CI = 1.32-4.66) for those with concurrent neck/shoulder and low back pain, compared to the group with solely neck/shoulder or solely low back pain. 

In Paper II, the study group consisted of employed subjects who had not sought medical care due to neck/shoulder pain at baseline, n = 1213. The results showed that 18% of the men and 29% of the women sought medical care due to neck/shoulder pain during the study period. For men, two single risk factors were identified. The relative risk (RR) for the onset of neck/shoulder pain was increased for manual handling > 50 N > 60 min / day (RR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.0-2.9), and for night work/shift work (RR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.0-2.8). Moreover, the RR increased with an increasing number of exposures (RRs between 1.7 and 4.8). For women, no risk factors were identified. 

In Paper III, the study group consisted of employed subjects with self-rated neck/shoulder pain at baseline, n = 803. The results showed that at the follow-up 44% of the men and 33% of the women had recovered. For subjects exposed to sitting > 75% of the working time, the relative chance for recovery (RC) was enhanced (RC = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.0-1.7), and hampered for those simultaneously exposed to at least two of the following three biomechanical exposures: manual handling > 50 N > 60 min / day, work with hands above shoulder level > 60 min / day, or work with vibrating tools > 30 min / day (RC = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.4-0.9). 

In Paper IV, the study group consisted of employed subjects who had sought medical care due to neck/shoulder or low back pain at baseline, n = 492. The aim was to study the effect of ergonomic interventions. The results showed that, in terms of pain intensity and pain-related disability, the prognosis for individuals who received educational worksite interventions was poorer than for those not receiving any interventions. The prognosis for individuals who received workplace interventions was similar to those not receiving any interventions. 

In conclusion, for men, work-related exposures influenced the onset of neck/shoulder pain, but no risk factors were identified for women. Work-related exposures influenced the prognosis, but ergonomic interventions were ineffective concerning the reduction in pain intensity and pain-related disability. 

Abstract [sv]

Denna avhandling presenterar resultat från en populationsbaserad kohortstudie om riskfaktorer och prognostiska faktorer för nacke/skulderbesvär. De fyra delarbeten baseras på en 4-6 års uppföljning av både fallen och referenter från MUSIC-Norrtälje studien, n = 2329. Huvudsyfte var att identifiera arbetsrelaterade faktorer som påverkar risken att drabbas och prognosen av nacke/skulderbesvär.

I det första delarbetet bestod studiepopulationen av personer i arbete som både vid baslinjen och uppföljningen hade besvär i nacke/skuldra eller ländrygg. Fyra grupper identifierades: enbart nacke/skulderbesvär, enbart ländryggsbesvär, samtidiga besvär i nacke/skuldra och ländrygg och migrerande besvär, n = 817. Resultaten visade att oddskvoten för förekomst av sjukskrivning under uppföljningstiden var 1.69 (95% CI = 1.32-4.66) för de med samtidiga besvär i nacke/skuldra och ländrygg jämfört med de med enbart nacke/skulder- och enbart ländryggsbesvär.

I det andra delarbetet bestod studiepopulationen av personer i arbete som vid baslinjen inte hade sökt vård på grund av nacke/skulderbesvär, n = 1213. Resultaten visade att under uppföljningstiden sökte 18 % av männen och 29 % av kvinnorna vård på grund av nacke/skulderbesvär. De exponeringar som innebar en ökad relativ risk (RR) att drabbas av nacke/skulderbesvär var manuell hantering > 50 N > 60 min / dag RR = 1.7 (95% CI 1.0-2.9) och natt/skiftarbete RR = 1.7 (95% CI 1.0- 2.8). Den relativa risken ökade med antalet exponeringar (RRs 1.7-4.8). För kvinnor identifierades inga riskfaktorer.

I det tredje delarbetet bestod studiepopulationen av personer i arbete med självskattade nacke/skulderbesvär vid baslinjen, n = 803. Resultaten visade att vid uppföljningen hade 44 % av männen och 33 % av kvinnor blivit av med besvären. De med sittande arbete > 75 % av arbetstiden hade en ökad relativ chans (RC) att återhämta sig (RC = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.0-1.7). Chansen att återhämta sig var lägst för de med minst två av följande tre biomekaniska exponeringar: manuell hantering > 50 N > 60 min / dag , arbete med händer över axelhöjd > 60 min / dag , och arbete med vibrerande verktyg > 30 min / dag (RC = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.4-0.9).

I det fjärde delarbetet bestod studiepopulationen av personer i arbete som vid baslinjen hade sökt vård på grund av besvär i nacke/skuldra eller ländrygg, n = 492. Syftet med studien var att studera effekten av olika ergonomiska åtgärder med avseende på smärta och funktionsnedsättning. Resultaten visade att prognosen var sämre för dem som fick individåtgärder jämfört med dem som inte fick några ergonomiska åtgärder alls under uppföljningstiden. Prognosen var densamma för dem som fick arbetsplatsåtgärder jämfört med dem som inte fick några ergonomiska åtgärder alls.

Sammanfattningsvis identifierades i denna avhandling exponeringar i arbetet som ökade risken att drabbas av nacke/skulderbesvär. Den ökade risken sågs bara hos män. Däremot visade avhandlingen att exponeringar i arbetet påverkar prognosen för såväl män som kvinnor. Ergonomiska interventioner verkar vara ineffektiva med avseende på smärta och funktionsnedsättning.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Karolinska Institutet, 2006. p. 68
Keywords
biomechanics, epidemiology, ergonomics, incidence, low back pain, neck/shoulder pain, occupational health, physical load, prognosis, psychosocial factors, sickness absence, work, work organization., arbete, arbetsorganisation, biomekanik, epidemiologi, ergonomi, fysisk belastning, incidence, ländrygg, nacke/skuldra, prognos, psykosociala faktorer, smärta, sjukskrivning, yrkesmedicin.
National Category
Occupational Health and Environmental Health Physiotherapy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:du-51821 (URN)91-7140-848-7 (ISBN)
Available from: 2025-11-18 Created: 2025-11-18 Last updated: 2025-11-18Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Scopus

Authority records

Grooten, Wim

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Grooten, Wim
In the same journal
Work: A journal of Prevention, Assessment and rehabilitation
Occupational Health and Environmental HealthPhysiotherapyPublic Health, Global Health and Social Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 39 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • chicago-author-date
  • chicago-note-bibliography
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf