Search

Objectives: The objective of this study was to examine the influence of physical exposure at work on neck and upper limb symptoms in office workers. Methods: Data were used from a prospective cohort study with a follow-up period of 3 years. Independent variables were physical exposure at work, observed and self-reported. Outcome measures were neck–shoulder symptoms and elbow–wrist–hand symptoms. Data were analyzed with the generalized estimating equation (GEE) method, with adjustment for age, gender, psychosocial work characteristics and the outcome at baseline. Results: Neck rotation was associated with neck–shoulder symptoms in the analyses with observed data (OR: 1.57; CI: 0.99–2.50) as well as those with self-reported data (OR: 1.43; CI: 1.02–2.01). Neck extension was also statistically significantly associated with neck–shoulder symptoms (OR: 2.42; CI: 1.22–4.80), but only self-reported data were available. Neck flexion, self-reported wrist pronation, self-reported arm elevation and self-reported duration of computer work, were not associated with symptoms. An indication was found of an adverse effect on neck–shoulder symptoms of long working days and on elbow–wrist–hand symptoms of self-reported wrist flexion and full-time work or longer compared to part-time work. Conclusions: Only a limited number of work-related physical factors were related to neck and upper limb symptoms in office workers. Only neck rotation and self-reported neck extension were identified as risk factors for neck-shoulder symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The growing field of indoor health and comfort studies recently shifted from predicting the average comfort and wellbeing of a large population into identifying the needs of individuals in different scenarios. This study aimed to identify different profiles of office workers in the Netherlands who took part in the OFFICAIR study, based on their self-reported health and comfort. Associations of respondents' health and comfort with gender and type of office indicated that female occupants experienced significantly higher numbers of building-related symptoms and consistently lower satisfaction levels of their office environment than male occupants. Workers in open space offices without partitions reported lower satisfaction and suffered from building-related symptoms more frequently than occupants in single person offices. TwoStep cluster analysis revealed three profiles of occupants: Healthy and satisfied workers, Moderate healthy and noise-bothered workers and Unhealthy and Air and temperature-bothered workers. While the first group was by far the healthiest, significant higher risks for building-related symptoms such as dry eyes (OR: 3.38), dry skin (OR: 2.87) and watering, itchy eyes (OR: 2.7) were identified for the unhealthy group than for the moderate healthy group. The results confirm the need of an integrated approach to better understand moderate and unhealthy groups in order to provide customised solutions for individuals with different complaints and needs. • Female workers reported more symptoms and complaints than male workers. • Most symptoms and complaints were reported by workers in open-plan offices. • Three profiles were identified: healthy, moderate healthy and unhealthy workers. • Unhealthy workers had higher risks for symptoms than moderate healthy workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sit-stand workstations have shown to reduce sitting time in office workers on a group level. However, movement behaviour patterns might differ between subgroups of workers. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine sitting, standing and stepping outcomes between habitual users and non-users of sit-stand workstations. From an international office population based in the Netherlands, 24 users and 25 non-users of sit-stand workstations were included (all had long-term access to these workstations). Using the ActivPAL, sitting, standing and stepping were objectively measured during and outside working hours. Differences in outcomes between users and non-users were analysed using linear regression. During working hours, users sat less (-1.64; 95% IC= -2.27--1.01 hour/8 hour workday) and stood more (1.51; 95% IC= 0.92-2.10 hour/8 hour workday) than non-users. Attenuated but similar differences were also found for total sitting time over the whole week. Furthermore, time in static standing bouts was relatively high for users during working hours (median= 0.56; IQR = 0.19-1.08 hour/8 hour workday). During non-working hours on workdays and during non-working days, no differences were found between users and non-users. During working hours, habitual users of their sit-stand workstation sat substantially less and stood proportionally more than non-users. No differences were observed outside working hours, leading to attenuated but similar differences in total sitting and standing time between users and non-users for total days. This indicated that the users of sit-stand workstations reduced their sitting time at work, but this seemed not to be accompanied by major carry-over or compensatory effects outside working hours., Competing Interests: . One of the authors (ES) is affiliated with a commercial occupational health and safety service (Arbo Unie). For ES, time to work on this manuscript was provided by Arbo Unie in the form of salary. The funder did not have any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Another author (AvdB) is performing paid advisory work for the spin-off company Evalua Nederland B.V., which has no relationship whatsoever with the present manuscript.

Objective: Prolonged sitting, which is highly prevalent in office workers, has been associated with several health risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the Dynamic Work intervention by determining its effect on total sitting time at the 8-month follow-up in comparison to the control., Methods: This two-arm pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial included 244 office workers from 14 different departments of a large, Dutch insurance company. The Dynamic Work intervention was a real-life, worksite intervention that included environmental components (i.e. sit-stand workstations), organisational components (i.e. group sessions), and individual components (e.g. activity/sitting trackers). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 4-month follow-up, and 8-month follow-up. The primary outcome was total sitting time per day, objectively assessed using the activPAL activity monitor at 8-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included other total and occupational movement behaviour outcomes, health-related outcomes, and work-related outcomes. Data analyses were performed using linear and logistic mixed models., Results: Total sitting time did not differ between the intervention and control group at the 8-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes also showed no difference between the intervention and control group at either the 4-month or at 8-month follow-up, with the exception of number of occupational steps, which showed a statistically significant effect at 4-month follow-up (but not at 8-month follow-up) of 913 (95% CI = 381-1445) steps/8-h working day., Conclusions: This study evaluated the effectiveness of a real-life worksite intervention to reduce sitting time and showed little to no effect. This may be due to the relatively low intensity of the intervention, i.e. that it only involved the replacement of 25% of sitting workstations with sit-stand workstations. Future research should focus on the evaluation of more intensive real-life worksite interventions that are still feasible for implementation in daily practice. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov, Registration Number: NCT03115645., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interests The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. This work was supported by Achmea, Interne Diensten N.V. (Handelsweg 2 Zeist, The Netherlands), which also provided the study population and co-developed the Dynamic Work intervention with the research team. Achmea had no influence on or role in the study design, data collection, analyses and interpretation of the data, the writing of this paper, and the decision to submit the paper for publication., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Office workers spend a high percentage of their time sitting, often in long periods of time. Research suggests that it is healthier to break these long bouts into shorter periods by being physically active., Objective: We evaluated the effect of a context-aware activity coach, called the PEARL app, an mHealth intervention that provides activity suggestions, based on a physical activity prediction model, consisting of past and current physical activity and digital agendas., Method: Fifteen office workers, aged 50+, participated in an intervention study in which they used the intervention for 1 week, preceded by a 1-week baseline period. Measurements were taken before and after the intervention period., Results: 107 days of data from 14 participants were analysed. Total sedentary time was not reduced as a result of using the intervention (baseline vs intervention: 47.8±3.6 vs 46.8±3.0, n.s.). When using the intervention, participants reduced their total time spent in long sitting bouts (≥45 min) from 19.3 to 14.4 min per hour of wear time (p<0.05). Participants indicated that the main value of the intervention lies in creating awareness about their personal sedentary behaviour pattern., Conclusion: An mHealth service has the potential to improve the sedentary behaviour of older office workers, especially for breaking up long sedentary periods. Focusing on total sedentary time as an outcome of an intervention, aimed at reducing sedentary behaviour, is too simplistic. One should take into account both the duration and the number of bouts when determining the effect., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Large volumes of sitting time have been associated with multiple health risks. To reduce sitting time of office workers working for a Dutch insurance company, the Dynamic Work intervention was developed. The primary objective of this paper is to describe the study protocol of the Dynamic Work study, which aims to evaluate if this multicomponent intervention is (cost-)effective in reducing total sitting time on the short-term (≈3 months) and longer-term (≈12 months) compared to usual practice.Methods/design: This two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial will recruit 250 desk-based office workers working at different locations of an insurance company in the Netherlands. After baseline measurements, departments will be matched in pairs and each pair will be randomly assigned to the control or intervention condition. The multicomponent intervention contains organizational (i.e. face to face session with the head of the department), work environmental (i.e. the introduction of sit-stand desks and cycling workstations), and individual elements (i.e. counselling and activity/sitting tracker with a self-help program booklet). The counselling involves two group intervention sessions and four on-site department consultations with an occupational physiotherapist. Sitting time (primary outcome), upright time and step counts will be assessed objectively using the activPAL activity monitor at baseline, short-term (approximately 3 months) and longer-term (12 months). Other outcomes will include: self-reported lifestyle behaviours, anthropometrics, work-related outcomes (i.e. absenteeism, presenteeism, work performance, work-related stress), health-related outcomes (i.e. vitality, musculoskeletal symptoms, need for recovery, quality of life), and costs from both company and societal perspective. The study will include economic and process evaluations.Discussion: This study will assess the longer-term (cost-) effectiveness of a multicomponent workplace intervention aimed at reducing sitting time in comparison with usual practice. Furthermore, the process evaluation will provide insights in factors associated with successful implementation of this intervention.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03115645 ; Registered 13 April 2017. Retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]