Search

Abstract Background Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) are a key topic in occupational health. In the primary prevention of these disorders, interventions to minimize exposure to work-related physical risk factors are widely advocated. Besides interventions aimed at the work organisation and the workplace, interventions are also aimed at the behaviour of workers, the so-called individual working practice (IWP). At the moment, no conceptual framework for interventions for IWP exists. This study is a first step towards such a framework. Methods A scoping review was carried out starting with a systematic search in Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid APA PsycInfo, and Web of Science. Intervention studies aimed at reducing exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors involving the worker were included. The content of these interventions for IWP was extracted and coded in order to arrive at distinguishing and overarching categories of these interventions for IWP. Results More than 12.000 papers were found and 110 intervention studies were included, describing 810 topics for IWP. Eventually eight overarching categories of interventions for IWP were distinguished: (1) Workplace adjustment, (2) Variation, (3) Exercising, (4) Use of aids, (5) Professional skills, (6) Professional manners, (7) Task content & task organisation and (8) Motoric skills. Conclusion Eight categories of interventions for IWP are described in the literature. These categories are a starting point for developing and evaluating effective interventions performed by workers to prevent WMSDs. In order to reach consensus on these categories, an international expert consultation is a necessary next step.

Abstract Background Observation of movement quality (MQ) is an indelible element in the process of clinical reasoning for patients with non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP). However, the observation and evaluation of MQ in common daily activities are not standardized within allied health care. This study aims to describe how Dutch allied health care professionals (AHCPs) observe and assess MQ in patients with NS-LBP and whether AHCPs feel the need to have a specific outcome measure for assessing MQ in patients with NS-LBP. Methods In this cross-sectional digital survey study, Dutch primary care AHCPs (n = 114) answered one open and three closed questions about MQ in NS-LBP management. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were applied. Results Qualitative analyses of the answers to the open questions revealed four main themes: 1) movement pattern features, 2) motor control features, 3) environmental influences and 4) non-verbal expressions of pain and exertion. Quantitative analyses clearly indicated that AHCPs observe MQ in the diagnostic (92%), therapeutic (91%) and evaluation phases (86%), that they do not apply any objective measurement of MQ and that 63% of the AHCPs consider it important to have a specific outcome measure to assess MQ. The AHCPs expressed added benefits and critical notes regarding clinical reasoning and quality of care. Conclusion AHCPs recognize the importance of observing MQ in the assessment and management of LBP in a standardized way. However, there is no consensus amongst AHCPs how MQ should be standardized. Prior to standardization, it will be important to develop a theoretical framework to determine which observable and measurable dimensions of MQ are most valid and relevant for patients with NS-LBP to include in the assessment.