We found low- quality evidence that different work-break frequencies may have no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain , discomfort and fatigue .
For productivity and work performance , evidence was of very low- quality that different work-break frequencies may have a positive effect .
For different types of break , there may be no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain , discomfort and fatigue according to low- quality evidence .
Furthermore , work-break interventions should be reconsidered , taking into account worker population s other than office workers , and taking into account the possibility of combining work-break intervention with other interventions such as ergonomic training or counselling , which may may possibly have an effect on musculoskeletal outcomes and work performance
BACKGROUND Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a group of musculoskeletal disorders that comprise one of the most common disorders related to occupational sick leave worldwide .
Musculoskeletal disorders accounted for 21 % to 28 % of work absenteeism days in 2017/2018 in the Netherl and s , Germany and the UK .
There are several interventions that may be effective in tackling the high prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among workers , such as physical , cognitive and organisational interventions .
In this review , we will focus on work breaks as a measure of primary prevention , which are a type of organisational intervention .
OBJECTIVES To compare the effectiveness of different work-break schedules for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders in healthy workers , when compared to conventional or alternate work-break schedules .
Impact of Booster Breaks and Computer Prompts on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Among Desk-Based Workers: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial
Introduction The 15-minute work break provides an opportunity to promote health , yet few studies have examined this part of the workday . We studied physical activity and sedentary behavior among office workers and compared the results of the Booster Break program with those of a second intervention and a control group to determine whether the Booster Break program improved physical and behavioral health outcomes . Methods We conducted a 3-arm , cluster-r and omized controlled trial at 4 worksites in Texas from 2010 through 2013 to compare a group-based , structured Booster Break program to an individual-based computer-prompt intervention and a usual-break control group ; we analyzed physiologic , behavioral , and employee measures such as work social support , quality of life , and perceived stress . We also identified consistent and inconsistent attendees of the Booster Break sessions . Results We obtained data from 175 participants ( mean age , 43 y ; 67 % racial/ethnic minority ) . Compared with the other groups , the consistent Booster Break attendees had greater weekly pedometer counts ( P < .001 ) , significant decreases in sedentary behavior and self-reported leisure-time physical activity ( P < .001 ) , and a significant increase in triglyceride concentrations ( P = .02 ) ( levels remained within the normal range ) . Usual-break participants significantly increased their body mass index , whereas Booster Break participants maintained body mass index status during the 6 months . Overall , Booster Break participants were 6.8 and 4.3 times more likely to have decreases in BMI and weekend sedentary time , respectively , than usual-break participants . Conclusion Findings varied among the 3 study groups ; however , results indicate the potential for consistent attendees of the Booster Break intervention to achieve significant , positive changes related to physical activity , sedentary behavior , and body mass index
We found low- quality evidence that different work-break frequencies may have no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain , discomfort and fatigue .
For productivity and work performance , evidence was of very low- quality that different work-break frequencies may have a positive effect .
For different types of break , there may be no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain , discomfort and fatigue according to low- quality evidence .
Furthermore , work-break interventions should be reconsidered , taking into account worker population s other than office workers , and taking into account the possibility of combining work-break intervention with other interventions such as ergonomic training or counselling , which may may possibly have an effect on musculoskeletal outcomes and work performance
BACKGROUND Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a group of musculoskeletal disorders that comprise one of the most common disorders related to occupational sick leave worldwide .
Musculoskeletal disorders accounted for 21 % to 28 % of work absenteeism days in 2017/2018 in the Netherl and s , Germany and the UK .
There are several interventions that may be effective in tackling the high prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among workers , such as physical , cognitive and organisational interventions .
In this review , we will focus on work breaks as a measure of primary prevention , which are a type of organisational intervention .
OBJECTIVES To compare the effectiveness of different work-break schedules for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders in healthy workers , when compared to conventional or alternate work-break schedules .