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 .
Do walking strategies to increase physical activity reduce reported sitting in workplaces: a randomized control trial
Background Interventions design ed to increase workplace physical activity may not automatically reduce high volumes of sitting , a behaviour independently linked to chronic diseases such as obesity and type II diabetes . This study compared the impact two different walking strategies had on step counts and reported sitting times . Methods Participants were white-collar university employees ( n = 179 ; age 41.3 ± 10.1 years ; 141 women ) , who volunteered and undertook a st and ardised ten-week intervention at three sites .  Pre-intervention step counts  ( Yamax SW-200 ) and  self-reported sitting times  were measured over five consecutive workdays . Using pre-intervention step counts , employees at each site were r and omly allocated to a control group ( n = 60 ; maintain normal behaviour ) , a route-based walking group ( n = 60 ; at least 10 minutes sustained walking each workday ) or an incidental walking group ( n = 59 ; walking in workday tasks ) . Workday step counts and reported sitting times were re-assessed at the beginning , mid- and endpoint of intervention and group mean± SD steps/day and reported sitting times for pre-intervention and intervention measurement points compared using a mixed factorial ANOVA ; paired sample -t-tests were used for follow-up , simple effect analyses . Results A significant interactive effect ( F = 3.5 ; p < 0.003 ) was found between group and step counts . Daily steps for controls decreased over the intervention period ( -391 steps/day ) and increased for route ( 968 steps/day ; t = 3.9 , p < 0.000 ) and incidental ( 699 steps/day ; t = 2.5 , p < 0.014 ) groups . There were no significant changes for reported sitting times , but average values did decrease relative to the control ( routes group = 7 minutes/day ; incidental group = 15 minutes/day ) . Reductions were most evident for the incidental group in the first week of intervention , where reported sitting decreased by an average of 21 minutes/day ( t = 1.9 ; p < 0.057 ) . Conclusion Compared to controls , both route and incidental walking increased physical activity  in white-collar employees . Our data suggests that workplace walking , particularly through incidental movement , also has the potential to decrease employee sitting times , but there is a need for on-going research using concurrent and objective measures of sitting , st and ing and walking
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 .