-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
The Use of Time Flow Analysis to Describe Changes in Physical Ergonomic Work Behaviours Following a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Participatory Ergonomic Intervention
C. Lund Rasmussen, A. Holtermann, K. Hron, D. Dumuid, CD. Nørregaard Rasmussen
Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie
Typ dokumentu randomizované kontrolované studie, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
35975806
DOI
10.1093/annweh/wxac058
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- ergonomie metody MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- postura těla MeSH
- pracoviště MeSH
- pracovní expozice * MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
AIM: Evaluations of participatory ergonomic interventions are often challenging as these types of interventions are tailored to the context and need of the workplace in which they are implemented. We aimed to describe how time flow analysis can be used to describe changes in work behaviours following a participatory ergonomic intervention. METHOD: This study was based on data from a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial with 29 childcare institutions and 116 workers (intervention: n = 60, control: n = 56). Physical behaviours at work were technically measured at baseline and 4-month follow-up. Physical behaviours were expressed in terms of relative work time spent forward bending of the back ≥30°, kneeling, active (i.e. walking, stair climbing and running) and sedentary. Average time flow from baseline to follow-up were calculated for both groups to investigate if work time was allocated differently at follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 116 workers (60 in the intervention and 56 in the control group) had valid accelerometer at baseline and follow-up. The largest group difference in time flowing from baseline to follow-up was observed for forward bending of the back and time spent kneeling. Compared to the control, the intervention group had less time flowing from forward bending of the back to kneeling (intervention: +11 min day, control: +16 min day) and more time flowing from kneeling to sedentary behaviours (intervention: +15 min day, control: +10 min day). CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that time flow analysis can be used to reveal changes in work time-use following a participatory ergonomic intervention. For example, the analysis revealed that the intervention group had replaced more work time spent kneeling with sedentary behaviours compared to the control group. This type of information on group differences in time reallocations would not have been possible to obtain by comparing group differences in work time-use following the intervention, supporting the usefulness of time flow analysis as a tool to evaluate complex, context-specific interventions.
Faculty of Physical Culture Palacký University Olomouc Olomouc Czech Republic
National Research Centre for the Working Environment Lersø Parkalle 105 2100 Copenhagen Denmark
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc22032664
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20230131151843.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 230120s2022 enk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1093/annweh/wxac058 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)35975806
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a enk
- 100 1_
- $a Lund Rasmussen, Charlotte $u Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway $u Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic $u National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lersø Parkalle 105, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark $1 https://orcid.org/0000000321935019
- 245 14
- $a The Use of Time Flow Analysis to Describe Changes in Physical Ergonomic Work Behaviours Following a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Participatory Ergonomic Intervention / $c C. Lund Rasmussen, A. Holtermann, K. Hron, D. Dumuid, CD. Nørregaard Rasmussen
- 520 9_
- $a AIM: Evaluations of participatory ergonomic interventions are often challenging as these types of interventions are tailored to the context and need of the workplace in which they are implemented. We aimed to describe how time flow analysis can be used to describe changes in work behaviours following a participatory ergonomic intervention. METHOD: This study was based on data from a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial with 29 childcare institutions and 116 workers (intervention: n = 60, control: n = 56). Physical behaviours at work were technically measured at baseline and 4-month follow-up. Physical behaviours were expressed in terms of relative work time spent forward bending of the back ≥30°, kneeling, active (i.e. walking, stair climbing and running) and sedentary. Average time flow from baseline to follow-up were calculated for both groups to investigate if work time was allocated differently at follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 116 workers (60 in the intervention and 56 in the control group) had valid accelerometer at baseline and follow-up. The largest group difference in time flowing from baseline to follow-up was observed for forward bending of the back and time spent kneeling. Compared to the control, the intervention group had less time flowing from forward bending of the back to kneeling (intervention: +11 min day, control: +16 min day) and more time flowing from kneeling to sedentary behaviours (intervention: +15 min day, control: +10 min day). CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that time flow analysis can be used to reveal changes in work time-use following a participatory ergonomic intervention. For example, the analysis revealed that the intervention group had replaced more work time spent kneeling with sedentary behaviours compared to the control group. This type of information on group differences in time reallocations would not have been possible to obtain by comparing group differences in work time-use following the intervention, supporting the usefulness of time flow analysis as a tool to evaluate complex, context-specific interventions.
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 12
- $a pracovní expozice $7 D016273
- 650 _2
- $a ergonomie $x metody $7 D006804
- 650 _2
- $a pracoviště $7 D017132
- 650 _2
- $a postura těla $7 D011187
- 655 _2
- $a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Holtermann, Andreas $u National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lersø Parkalle 105, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
- 700 1_
- $a Hron, Karel $u Department of Mathematical Analysis and Applications of Mathematics, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Dumuid, Dorothea $u Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition, and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- 700 1_
- $a Nørregaard Rasmussen, Charlotte Diana $u National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lersø Parkalle 105, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
- 773 0_
- $w MED00210179 $t Annals of work exposures and health $x 2398-7316 (online) $g Roč. 66, č. 9 (2022), s. 1199-1209
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35975806 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20230120 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20230131151839 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1891424 $s 1183999
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2022 $b 66 $c 9 $d 1199-1209 $e 2022Nov15 $i 2398-7316 (online) $m Annals of work exposures and health $n Ann Work Expo Health $x MED00210179
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20230120