Designing industrial work to be 'just right' to promote health - a study protocol for a goldilocks work intervention
Language English Country England, Great Britain Media electronic
Document type Clinical Trial Protocol, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
35197018
PubMed Central
PMC8867863
DOI
10.1186/s12889-022-12643-w
PII: 10.1186/s12889-022-12643-w
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Goldilocks Work Principle, Health, Intervention, Physical Behavior,
- MeSH
- Occupational Health * MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Health Promotion * methods MeSH
- Workplace MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic MeSH
- Standing Position MeSH
- Fatigue MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Clinical Trial Protocol MeSH
BACKGROUND: The Goldilocks Work Principle expresses that productive work should be designed to promote workers' health. We recently showed that it is feasible to develop and implement modifications to productive work that change physical behaviors (i.e. sitting, standing and being active) in a direction that may promote health among industrial workers. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial investigating health effects of implementing the Goldilocks Work intervention among industrial workers. METHODS: Our implementation plan consists of educating work teams, organizing implementation meetings, and providing feedback to workers. Three meetings with a preselected local workplace group will be scheduled. The first meeting educates the group to use a planning tool by which work can be planned to have 'just right' physical behaviors. The second and third meetings will focus on supporting implementation of the tool in daily work. An expected 28 clusters of work teams across two participating production sites will be randomized to either intervention or control group. Data collection will consist of 1) questionnaires regarding work and musculoskeletal health, 2) wearable sensor measurements of the physical behavior, and 3) assessment of general health indicators, including BMI, blood pressure, and fat percentage. The primary outcome is musculoskeletal health, measured by low back pain intensity, and secondary outcomes are 1) physical behaviors at work, 2) accumulated time in long bouts of sitting, standing, and being active and 3) perceived fatigue and energy during work. Furthermore, implementation and cost of the intervention will be evaluated based on questionnaires and data from the planning tool completed by the workers. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of a 12 - weeks Goldilocks Work intervention with the aim of improving musculoskeletal health among industrial workers. The cluster randomized controlled study design and the evaluation of the implementation, results and costs of the intervention will make it capable of contributing with valuable evidence of how productive work may be designed to promote industrial workers' health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration was assigned 10-09-2021 (ISRCTN80969503). https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN80969503.
Department of Clinical Research University of Southern Denmark 5230 Odense Denmark
Faculty of Physical Culture Palacký University Olomouc 77147 Olomouc Czech Republic
National Research Centre for the Working Environment Lersø Park Allé 105 2100 Copenhagen Denmark
School of Allied Health Curtin University Perth WA 6102 Australia
See more in PubMed
Andersen LL, Fallentin N, Thorsen SV, Holtermann A. Physical workload and risk of long-term sickness absence in the general working population and among blue-collar workers: prospective cohort study with register follow-up. Occup Environ Med. 2016;73(4):246–253. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2015-103314. PubMed DOI
Pedersen J, Schultz BB, Madsen IEH, Solovieva S, Andersen LL. High physical work demands and working life expectancy in Denmark. Occup Environ Med. 2020;77:576–82. PubMed PMC
Andersen LL, Vinstrup J, Sundstrup E, Skovlund SV, Villadsen E, Thorsen SV. Combined ergonomic exposures and development of musculoskeletal pain in the general working population: A prospective cohort study. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2021;47(4):287–295. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3954. PubMed DOI PMC
Holtermann A, Hansen JV, Burr H, Søgaard K. Prognostic factors for long-term sickness absence among employees with neck-shoulder and low-back pain. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36(1):34–41. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.2883. PubMed DOI
Hallman DM, Holtermann A, Dencker-Larsen S, Birk Jørgensen M, Nørregaard Rasmussen CD. Are trajectories of neck–shoulder pain associated with sick leave and work ability in workers? A 1-year prospective study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(3):e022006. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022006. PubMed PMC
Straker L, Mathiassen SE. Increased physical work loads in modern work–a necessity for better health and performance? Ergonomics. 2009;52(10):1215–1225. doi: 10.1080/00140130903039101. PubMed DOI
Holtermann A, Mathiassen SE, Straker L. Promoting health and physical capacity during productive work: the Goldilocks Principle. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2019;45(1):90–97. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3754. PubMed DOI
Work environment and health in Denmark, 2012-2018: The National Research Centre for the Working Environment; 2020 [cited 2020 21/06]. Available from: https://arbejdsmiljodata.nfa.dk/.
Skovlund SV, Bláfoss R, Sundstrup E, Andersen LL. Association between physical work demands and work ability in workers with musculoskeletal pain: cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):166. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03191-8. PubMed DOI PMC
Lötters F, Burdorf A. Prognostic factors for duration of sickness absence due to musculoskeletal disorders. Clin J Pain. 2006;22(2):212–221. doi: 10.1097/01.ajp.0000154047.30155.72. PubMed DOI
Janssen N, Kant IJ, Swaen GM, Janssen PP, Schröer CA. Fatigue as a predictor of sickness absence: results from the Maastricht cohort study on fatigue at work. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:i71–i76. PubMed PMC
Fatoye F. The economic impact of musculoskeletal pain. The Journal of Physiotherapy Pain Association. 2018;2018:3–4(2).
Demographic trends of workforce: European Commission; [cited 2020 14/12]. Available from: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/foresight/topic/changing-nature-work/demographic-trends-of-workforce_en.
Andersen LL, Pedersen J, Sundstrup E, Thorsen SV, Rugulies R. High physical work demands have worse consequences for older workers: prospective study of long-term sickness absence among 69 117 employees. Occup Environ Med. 2021;78:829–34. PubMed PMC
Straker L, Mathiassen SE, Holtermann A. The “Goldilocks Principle”: designing physical activity at work to be “just right” for promoting health. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(13):818–9. PubMed PMC
Lerche AF, Mathiassen SE, Rasmussen CL, Straker L, Søgaard K, Holtermann A. Development and Implementation of 'Just Right' Physical Behavior in Industrial Work Based on the Goldilocks Work Principle-A Feasibility Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(9):4707. 10.1371/journal.pone.0245501. PubMed PMC
Øverås CK, Villumsen M, Axén I, Cabrita M, Leboeuf-Yde C, Hartvigsen J, et al. Association between objectively measured physical behaviour and neck- and/or low back pain: A systematic review. Eur J Pain. 2020;24(6):1007–1022. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1551. PubMed DOI
Wells R, Norman R, Frazer M, Laing A, Cole D, Kerr M. Participative Ergonomic Blueprint. Toronto: Institute for Work & Health; 2003.
Jørgensen MB, Gupta N, Korshøj M, Lagersted-Olsen J, Villumsen M, Mortensen OS, et al. The DPhacto cohort: An overview of technically measured physical activity at work and leisure in blue-collar sectors for practitioners and researchers. Appl Ergon. 2019;77:29–39. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2019.01.003. PubMed DOI
Dumuid D, Wake M, Burgner D, Tremblay MS, Okely AD, Edwards B, et al. Balancing time use for children’s fitness and adiposity: Evidence to inform 24-hour guidelines for sleep, sedentary time and physical activity. PLOS ONE. 2021;16(1):e0245501. 10.1371/journal.pone.0245501. PMID: 33465128; PMCID: PMC7815105. PubMed PMC
Peereboom K, de Langen N, Bortkiewicz A, Copsey S. Prolonged constrained standing at work - executive summary. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work; 2021. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj1gbDW4OP1AhVQasAKHeeNC68QFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhealthy-workplaces.eu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpublications%2Fdocuments%2FStandingatworksummaryEN.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2xCmAaNz6Tpo38UDU50X4z.
Mathiassen SE. Diversity and variation in biomechanical exposure: what is it, and why would we like to know? Appl Ergon. 2006;37(4):419–427. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.006. PubMed DOI
Leider PC, Boschman JS, Frings-Dresen MH, van der Molen HF. Effects of job rotation on musculoskeletal complaints and related work exposures: a systematic literature review. Ergonomics. 2015;58(1):18–32. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2014.961566. PubMed DOI
Comper MLC. Dennerlein JT, Evangelista GDS, Rodrigues da Silva P, Padula RS. Effectiveness of job rotation for preventing work-related musculoskeletal diseases: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Occup Environ Med. 2017;74(8):545–52. PubMed
Coenen P, Parry S, Willenberg L, Shi JW, Romero L, Blackwood DM, et al. Associations of prolonged standing with musculoskeletal symptoms-A systematic review of laboratory studies. Gait Posture. 2017;58:310–318. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.08.024. PubMed DOI
Callaghan JP, De Carvalho D, Gallagher K, Karakolis T, Nelson-Wong E. Is Standing the Solution to Sedentary Office Work? Ergonomics in Design. 2015;23(3):20–24. doi: 10.1177/1064804615585412. DOI
Ekelund U, Tarp J, Fagerland MW, Johannessen JS, Hansen BH, Jefferis BJ, et al. Joint associations of accelerometer-measured physical activity and sedentary time with all-cause mortality: a harmonised meta-analysis in more than 44 000 middle-aged and older individuals. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(24):1499–1506. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103270. PubMed DOI PMC
Mills T, Lawton R, Sheard L. Advancing complexity science in healthcare research: the logic of logic models. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0701-4. PubMed DOI PMC
Bauer MS, Damschroder L, Hagedorn H, Smith J, Kilbourne AM. An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychology. 2015;3(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9. PubMed DOI PMC
Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7. PubMed DOI PMC
Mihalic S. The importance of implementation fidelity. Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in Youth. 2004;4:83–105.
Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):139. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-139. PubMed DOI PMC
Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1. PubMed DOI PMC
Ivers NM, Sales A, Colquhoun H, Michie S, Foy R, Francis JJ, et al. No more ‘business as usual’ with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):14. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-14. PubMed DOI PMC
Hartvigsen J, Davidsen M, Hestbaek L, Sogaard K, Roos EM. Patterns of musculoskeletal pain in the population: A latent class analysis using a nationally representative interviewer-based survey of 4817 Danes. Eur J Pain. 2013;17(3):452–460. doi: 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00225.x. PubMed DOI
Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200–207. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583. PubMed DOI PMC
Gupta N, Wåhlin-Jacobsen CD, Abildgaard JS, Henriksen LN, Nielsen K, Holtermann A. Effectiveness of a participatory physical and psychosocial intervention to balance the demands and resources of industrial workers: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment Health. 2018;1:58–68. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3689. PubMed DOI
Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arth Care Res. 2011;63 Suppl 11:S240–52. 10.1002/acr.20543. PMID: 22588748. PubMed
Fishman GS, Moore LR. A Statistical Evaluation of Multiplicative Congruential Random Number Generators with Modulus 231 1. J Am Stat Assoc. 1982;77(377):129–136.
Olsen O, Albertsen K, Nielsen ML, Poulsen KB, Gron SM, Brunnberg HL. Workplace restructurings in intervention studies - a challenge for design, analysis and interpretation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:39. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-39. PubMed DOI PMC
Work environment and health in Denmark: The National Research Centre for the Working Environment; 2018 [cited 2022 04/01]. Available from: https://at.dk/media/5991/spoergeskema-2018.pdf.
Skotte J, Korshøj M, Kristiansen J, Hanisch C, Holtermann A. Detection of physical activity types using triaxial accelerometers. J Phys Act Health. 2014;11(1):76–84. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2011-0347. PubMed DOI
Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, Vinterberg H, Biering-Sørensen F, Andersson G, et al. Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Appl Ergon. 1987;18(3):233–237. doi: 10.1016/0003-6870(87)90010-X. PubMed DOI
Ware Jr. JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002. PubMed DOI
Stevens ML, Crowley P, Garde AH, Mortensen OS, Nygård C-H, Holtermann A. Validation of a Short-Form Version of the Danish Need for Recovery Scale against the Full Scale. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(13):2334. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16132334. PubMed DOI PMC
Strøyer J, Essendrop M, Jensen LD, Warming S, Avlund K, Schibye B. Validity and reliability of self-assessed physical fitness using visual analogue scales. Percept Mot Skills. 2007;104(2):519–533. doi: 10.2466/pms.104.2.519-533. PubMed DOI
Clausen T, Madsen IE, Christensen KB, Bjorner JB, Poulsen OM, Maltesen T, et al. The Danish Psychosocial Work Environment Questionnaire (DPQ): Development, content, reliability and validity. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2019;45(4):356–369. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3793. PubMed DOI
Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A, Berglund P, Cleary PD, McKenas D, et al. The World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ) J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45(2):156–174. doi: 10.1097/01.jom.0000052967.43131.51. PubMed DOI
Ilmarinen J. The work ability index (WAI). Occup Med. 2007;57(2):160. 10.1093/occmed/kqm008.
Karlsson ML, Bergström G, Björklund C, Hagberg J, Jensen I. Measuring production loss due to health and work environment problems: construct validity and implications. J Occup Environ Med. 2013;55(12):1475–1483. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000005. PubMed DOI
Hernán MA, Robins JM. Per-Protocol Analyses of Pragmatic Trials. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(14):1391–1398. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsm1605385. PubMed DOI
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz K, Montori V, Gøtzsche P, Devereaux P, et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parralel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:e1–e37. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004. PubMed DOI