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 .
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 up date 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 .
Process evaluation of a participatory ergonomics programme to prevent low back pain and neck pain among workers
Background Both low back pain ( LBP ) and neck pain ( NP ) are major occupational health problems . In the workplace , participatory ergonomics ( PE ) is frequently used on musculoskeletal disorders . However , evidence on the effectiveness of PE to prevent LBP and NP obtained from r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) is scarce . This study evaluates the process of the Stay@Work participatory ergonomics programme , including the perceived implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures . Methods This cluster- RCT was conducted at the departments of four Dutch companies ( a railway transportation company , an airline company , a steel company , and a university including its university medical hospital ) . Directly after the r and omisation outcome , intervention departments formed a working group that followed the steps of PE during a six-hour working group meeting . Guided by an ergonomist , working groups identified and prioritised risk factors for LBP and NP , and composed and prioritised ergonomic measures . Within three months after the meeting , working groups had to implement the prioritised ergonomic measures at their department . Data on various process components ( recruitment , reach , fidelity , satisfaction , and implementation components , i.e. , dose delivered and dose received ) were collected and analysed on two levels : department ( i.e. , working group members from intervention departments ) and participant ( i.e. , workers from intervention departments ) . Results A total of 19 intervention departments ( n = 10 with mental workloads , n = 1 with a light physical workload , n = 4 departments with physical and mental workloads , and n = 4 with heavy physical workloads ) were recruited for participation , and the reach among working group members who participated was high ( 87 % ) . Fidelity and satisfaction towards the PE programme rated by the working group members was good ( 7.3 or higher ) . The same was found for the Stay@Work ergocoach training ( 7.5 or higher ) . In total , 66 ergonomic measures were prioritised by the working groups . Altogether , 34 % of all prioritised ergonomic measures were perceived as implemented ( dose delivered ) , while the workers at the intervention departments perceived 26 % as implemented ( dose received ) . Conclusions PE can be a successful method to develop and to prioritise ergonomic measures to prevent LBP and NP . Despite the positive rating of the PE programme the implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures was lower than expected . Trial registration Current Controlled Trials IS RCT
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 .
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 up date 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 .