A Multi-component Intervention (NEXpro) Reduces Neck Pain-Related Work Productivity Loss: A Randomized Controlled Trial Among Swiss Office Workers.

Purpose Neck pain is common among office workers and leads to work productivity loss. This study aimed to investigate the effect of a multi-component intervention on neck pain-related work productivity loss among Swiss office workers. Methods Office workers, aged 18-65 years, and without serious neck-related health problems were recruited from two organisations for our stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. The 12-week multi-component intervention included neck exercises, health-promotion information, and workplace ergonomics. The primary outcome of neck pain-related work productivity loss was measured using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire and expressed as percentages of working time. In addition, we reported the weekly monetary value of neck pain-related work productivity loss. Data was analysed on an intention-to-treat basis using a generalized linear mixed-effects model. Results Data from 120 participants were analysed with 517 observations. At baseline, the mean age was 43.7 years (SD 9.8 years), 71.7% of participants were female (N = 86), about 80% (N = 95) reported mild to moderate neck pain, and neck pain-related work productivity loss was 12% of working time (absenteeism: 1.2%, presenteeism: 10.8%). We found an effect of our multi-component intervention on neck pain-related work productivity loss, with a marginal predicted mean reduction of 2.8 percentage points (b = -0.27; 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.001, p = 0.049). Weekly saved costs were Swiss Francs 27.40 per participant. Conclusions: Our study provides evidence for the effectiveness of a multi-component intervention to reduce neck pain-related work productivity loss with implications for employers, employees, and policy makers.Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04169646. Registered 15 November 2019-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04169646 .

Reproducibility of a new signal processing technique to assess joint sway during standing.

Postural control strategies can be investigated by kinematic analysis of joint movements. However, current research is focussing mainly on the analysis of centre of pressure excursion and lacks consensus on how to assess joint movement during postural control tasks. This study introduces a new signal processing technique to comprehensively quantify joint sway during standing and evaluates its reproducibility. Fifteen patients with non-specific low back pain and ten asymptomatic participants performed three repetitions of a 60-second standing task on foam surface. This procedure was repeated on a second day. Lumbar spine movement was recorded using an inertial measurement system. The signal was temporally divided into six sections. Two outcome variables (mean absolute sway and sways per second) were calculated for each section. The reproducibility of single and averaged measurements was quantified with linear mixed-effects models and the generalizability theory. A single measurement of ten seconds duration revealed reliability coefficients of .75 for mean absolute sway and .76 for sways per second. Averaging a measurement of 40 seconds duration on two different days revealed reliability coefficients higher than .90 for both outcome variables. The outcome variables' reliability compares favourably to previously published results using different signal processing techniques or centre of pressure excursion. The introduced signal processing technique with two outcome variables to quantify joint sway during standing proved to be a highly reliable method. Since different populations, tasks or measurement tools could influence reproducibility, further investigation in other settings is still necessary. Nevertheless, the presented method has been shown to be highly promising.

Reliability of lumbar movement dysfunction tests for chronic low back pain patients.

Assessment of lumbar movement dysfunction commonly comprises trunk range of motion (ROM), movement or control impairment (MCI), and reposition error (RE). Those assessments are typically based on visual observation. Consequently it is not possible to reliably quantify back movements for intersubject comparisons, or for monitoring changes before and after an intervention. Inertial measurement unit (IMU)-systems could be used to quantify these movement dysfunctions in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of movement dysfunction tests when measured with a novel IMU-system. The reliability of eleven movement dysfunction tests (four ROM, six MCI and one RE tests) were analysed using generalizability-theory and minimal detectable change, measuring 21 chronic low back pain patients in seven trials on two days. Reliability varied across tests and variables. Four ROM and selected MCI tests and variables were identified as reliable. On average, ROM test were more reliable, compared to MCI and RE tests. An attempt should be made to improve the reliability of MCI and RE measures, for example through better standardizations. Subsequently these measures should be studied further for intersubject comparisons and monitoring changes after an intervention.

Adherence to home exercises in non-specific low back pain. A randomised controlled pilot trial.

Specific exercises for the improvement of movement control of the lumbopelvic region are well-established for patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) and movement control impairment (MCI). However, a lack of adherence to home exercise regimens is often observed. The aim of the study was to explore the differences in home exercise (HE) adherence between patients who perform conventional exercises and those who exercise with Augmented Feedback (AF). Twenty patients with NSLBP and MCI were randomly allocated into two groups. The physiotherapy group (PT group) completed conventional exercises, and the AF group exercised with an AF system that was designed for use in therapy settings. The main outcome measure was self-reported adherence to the home exercise regimen. There was no significant difference in HE duration between the groups (W = 64, p = 0.315). The AF group exercised for a median of 9 min and 4 s (IQR = 3'59"), and the PT group exercised for 4 min and 19 s (IQR = 8'30"). Exercising with AF led to HE times that were similar to those of conventional exercise, and AF might be used as an alternative therapy method for home exercise.

Low back pain and postural control, effects of task difficulty on centre of pressure and spinal kinematics.

Association of low back pain and standing postural control (PC) deficits are reported inconsistently. Demands on PC adaptation strategies are increased by restraining the input of visual or somatosensory senses. The objectives of the current study are, to investigate whether PC adaptations of the spine, hip and the centre of pressure (COP) differ between patients reporting non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) and asymptomatic controls. The PC adaption strategies of the thoracic and lumbar spine, the hip and the COP were measured in fifty-seven NSLBP patients and 22 asymptomatic controls. We tested three "feet together" conditions with increasing demands on PC strategies, using inertial measurement units (IMUs) on the spine and a Wii balance board for centre of pressure (COP) parameters. The differences between NSLBP patients and controls were most apparent when the participants were blindfolded, but remaining on a firm surface. While NSLBP patients had larger thoracic and lumbar spine mean absolute deviations of position (MADpos) in the frontal plane, the same parameters decreased in control subjects (relative change (RC): 0.23, 95% confidence interval: 0.03 to 0.45 and 0.03 to 0.48). The Mean absolute deviation of velocity (MADvel) of the thoracic spine in the frontal plane showed a similar and significant effect (RC: 0.12 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.25). Gender, age and pain during the measurements affected some parameters significantly. PC adaptions differ between NSLBP patients and asymptomatic controls. The differences are most apparent for the thoracic and lumbar parameters of MADpos, in the frontal plane and while the visual condition was removed.