• 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

. 2022 ; 66 (9) : 1199-1209. [pub] 2022Nov15

Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu randomizované kontrolované studie, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22032664

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.

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

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...