Documents physical fitness programme 11 results

"Objective
This review addresses the effectiveness of workplace interventions that are implemented during productive work and are intended to change workers` SB and/or PA.
Methods
We searched Scopus for articles published from 1992 until 12 March 2015. Relevant studies were evaluated using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and summarized in a best-evidence synthesis. Primary outcomes were SB and PA, both at work and overall (ie, during the whole day); work performance and health-related parameters were secondary outcomes.
Results The review included 40 studies describing 41 interventions organized into three categories: alternative workstations (20), interventions promoting stair use (11), and personalized behavioral interventions (10). Alternative workstations were found to decrease overall SB (strong evidence; even for treadmills separately); interventions promoting stair use were found to increase PA at work while personalized behavioral interventions increased overall PA (both with moderate evidence). There was moderate evidence to show alternative workstations influenced neither hemodynamics nor cardiorespiratory fitness and personalized behavioral interventions did not influence anthropometric measures. Evidence was either insufficient or conflicting for intervention effects on work performance and lipid and metabolic profiles.
Conclusions
Current evidence suggests that some of the reviewed workplace interventions that are compatible with productive work indeed have positive effects on SB or PA at work. In addition, some of the interventions were found to influence overall SB or PA positively. Putative long-term effects remain to be established."

"Objective: Numerous studies has shown that regular physical exercise can reduce musculoskeletal pain, but the optimal setting to achieve high adherence and effectiveness remains unknown. This study investigated the effect of workplace versus home-based physical exercise on musculoskeletal pain among healthcare workers.Methods: The randomized controlled trial (RCT) comprised 200 female healthcare workers from 18 departments at 3 hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated at the cluster level to ten weeks of: (i) workplace physical exercise (WORK) performed during working hours for 5×10 minutes per week and up to 5 group-based coaching sessions on motivation for regular physical exercise, or (ii) home-based physical exercise (HOME) performed during leisure time for 5×10 minutes per week. Both groups received ergonomic counseling on patient handling and use of lifting aides. Average pain intensity (0–10 scale) in the low back and neck/shoulder was the primary outcome.Results: Per week, 2.2 (SD 1.1) and 1.0 (SD 1.2) training sessions were performed in WORK and HOME groups, respectively. Pain intensity, back muscle strength and use of analgesics improved more following WORK than HOME (P<0.05). Between-group differences at follow-up (WORK versus HOME) was -0.7 points for pain intensity [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -1.0– -0.3], 5.5 Nm for back muscle strength (95% CI 2.0–9.0), and -0.4 days per week for use of analgesics (95% CI -0.7– -0.2). The effect size for between-group differences in pain intensity was small (Cohen's d=0.31).Conclusions: Workplace physical exercise is more effective than home-based exercise in reducing musculoskeletal pain, increasing muscle strength and reducing the use of analgesics among healthcare workers."

This paper systematically reviews the literature on the effectiveness of physical activity programs at worksites with respect to work-related outcomes. A computerized literature search, a reference search, and a manual search of personal databases were performed using the following inclusion criteria: randomized controlled or controlled trial, working population, worksite intervention program to promote physical activity or physical fitness, and work-related outcomes. The study quality was evaluated using nine methodological criteria. Conclusions were based on a 5-level rating system of evidence. Eight studies (4 randomized controlled trials and 4 controlled trials) were identified, but their methodological quality was generally poor. The outcomes were absenteeism, job satisfaction, job stress, productivity, and employee turnover. The evidence of an effect was limited for absenteeism, inconclusive for job satisfaction, job stress and employee turnover, and nil for productivity. The scientific evidence on the effectiveness of physical activity programs at worksites is still limited. Because of the few high-quality randomized controlled trials, it is strongly suggested that this type of study be carried out. Future randomized controlled trials should pay special attention to the description of randomization, inclusion criteria, compliance, and analyses according to intention to treat.

"The aim of this project was to compare characteristics and factors that distinguished those individuals (n = 101) who participated in a worksite wellness program from those who did not (n = 100). This project was unique in that the majority of subjects were bluecollar workers. Factor analysis of a 35-item questionnaire resulted in six factors: perceived benefits of health promotion behaviors, perceived physical barriers of health promotion, perceived self-efficacy for health promotion behaviors, perceived psychological barriers, situational components relating to convenience of the wellness facility, and the need for social support. Discriminant analysis revealed that self-efficacy was the most useful factor in distinguishing between the two groups. Participants identified more benefits and fewer barriers to health promotion activities. Nonparticipants were older, less educated, and tended to view their age, their perceived lack of fitness, and perceived poorer health status as deterrents to regular physical activity. Nonparticipants also identified shift work, working overtime, responsibilities at home, and distance from work as important barriers to health promotion activities. Self-efficacy factors appear to warrant further investigation in future attempts to explain health promotion behaviors in this high risk group."

"Objectives This study prospectively assessed the effects of occupational physical activity on atherosclerosis progression.Methods This population-based prospective study of ultrasonographically assessed carotid intima media thickness (IMT) used repeated measures of occupational physical activity during baseline, 4-year, and 11-year examinations of 612 Finnish men 42–60 years of age at baseline. The association between five measures of energy expenditure and the 11-year change in maximum IMT was evaluated in regression models adjusting for 21 potential confounders, including biological factors, leisure-time physical activity, smoking, socioeconomic status, psychosocial job factors, and baseline health status.Results At baseline, 31% of all the men and 51% of those with ischemic heart disease (IHD) exceeded the recommended maximum levels of relative aerobic strain. All five measures of energy expenditure were significantly associated with adjusted 11-year IMT change. Significant interactions were found between IHD and several measures of energy expenditure. Maximum relative aerobic strain resulted in a 90% increase in IMT among the men with IHD compared with a 46% increase among those without IHD. The men with preexisting carotid stenosis also had higher rates of IMT progression than the men without this condition.Conclusions This study shows that high energy expenditures at work are associated with an accelerated progression of atherosclerosis even after control for virtually all known cardiovascular risk factors, especially among older workers and workers with preexisting IHD or carotid artery stenosis. The findings support the hemodynamic theory of atherosclerosis and have important implications for workplace surveillance and disease prevention."

"Background: Lifestyle modification in healthy workers is challenging. We aim to investigate associations between job stress and healthy behavior change among workers.
Methods: This cross-sectional study investigated 1,183 Japanese male white-collar workers in 2008 during health checkups for Metabolic Syndrome. Healthy behavior included either a calorie-focused diet or regular exercise. Job stress was measured by Job Content Questionnaire based on the job demands-control model and tension-anxiety and anger-hostility scales on the Profile of Mood States.
Results: Healthy behaviors were confirmed in 54% of study subjects. Multivariate logistic model showed that healthy behaviors were positively associated with a higher degree of work control and negatively associated with greater work demand. Work control and support were negatively correlated with tension-anxiety and depression, whereas work demand and strain were positively correlated with these two emotion domains (all P's?Conclusions: It is suggested that addressing job stress is of clinical importance to promote healthy behaviors."

"The aim of this brochure is literally to get you jumping to your feet. And not only while you're reading it, but several times a day. Why? Quite simply because we all spend too much time sitting. In our free time, at work, during training - modern man has neglected his talent for standing and has got used to the sitting position (at work as well). This has become possible thanks not least to computers and similar devices which have tied many people permanently to their desks. In former times it was still necessary to move around a bit in the office - fetching a file, taking some documents into the next office - but now all that's required for most jobs is a mouse click.
This development makes things comfortable for us, but it doesn't do much for our health. In fact our whole organism needs movement to stay healthy in the long run. Something that is ignored in the daily routine of many people. And that's why around 8 % of those who work at the computer screen day after day suffer from a range of different health disorders, from sore eyes and tense shoulders through to back problems."

"Travailler assis ou debout peut être pénible et fatigant, même en cas d'activité n'exigeant pas d'effort physique particulier. De nombreux travailleurs souffrent de maux de dos et de douleurs dans les jambes. Les causes sont multiples: sièges défectueux, plans de travail trop hauts ou trop bas, ou stations debout prolongées sur des sols durs. Certaines douleurs sont également dues à une mauvaise posture assise, au manque de mouvement ou à une posture debout permanente. Ces troubles fonctionnels ont une incidence défavorable sur la qualité de vie des individus et, partant, sur les résultats des entreprises (hausse de l'absentéisme, baisse de qualité, baisse de productivité).
Comment aménager les postes de travail afin d'éviter ces désagréments? Quels sont les critères de choix d'un siège de travail? Comment utiliser correctement les équipements de travail? Dans quels cas doit-on travailler assis, quand faut-il travailler debout? La présente brochure fournit des réponses à ces questions. Elle s'adresse aux supérieurs hiérarchiques, aux spécialistes de la sécurité, aux responsables de la conception, de l'installation et de l'équipement des postes de travail, aux constructeurs de machines et de matériel d'aménagement ainsi qu'aux personnes intéressées. "