Documents Proper, Karin I. 8 results

"Work-related stress complaints are a growing societal problem. Occupational health professionals often play a key role in its prevention. However, studies providing an overview of preventive interventions and their effectiveness are lacking. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence on the effectiveness of interventions delivered by occupational health professionals to prevent work-related stress complaints.
A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo and Medline was performed in May 2023 based on PICO (population, intervention, control and outcomes) elements. Inclusion criteria were: peer-reviewed papers with a randomised controlled trial design, quasi-experimental design and pre-post evaluations with a control group; working populations not on sick leave; interventions delivered by occupational health professionals; and stress outcomes. Data were extracted using a predefined extraction form, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB-2) and Risk of Bias in non-randomised Studies-of Interventions tool, and a narrative analysis was performed to summarise data.
Nine studies were included in this review and encompassed a diverse range of populations, interventions and professionals involved, outcome measures, and effects observed. Five studies found either mixed effects on stress outcomes, short-term positive effects, or positive effects in a subgroup of participants demonstrating high adherence to the intervention.
As the results show mixed findings, a high risk of bias, and a limited number of studies was available, more research is needed to the effectiveness of the interventions and the factors underlying this."

"Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a worksite vitality intervention on vigorous physical activity (VPA), fruit intake, aerobic capacity, mental health and need for recovery after work among older hospital workers (ie, 45?years and older). Methods The 6-month intervention was evaluated using a randomised controlled trial design. Workers who were randomised to the intervention group (n=367; control: n=363) received the Vital@Work intervention containing (1) a Vitality Exercise Program (VEP) combined with (2) three visits to Personal Vitality Coach. The VEP consisted of a weekly yoga session, a weekly workout session and weekly unsupervised aerobic exercising. Free fruit was provided at the VEP. Data on the outcome measures were collected (ie, year 2009–2010) at baseline (n=730) and 6?months of follow-up after baseline (n=575) using questionnaires, accelerometers and 2?km walk tests. Effects were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle with complete cases (n=575) and imputed data (n=730) using linear regression analyses. Additional analyses were performed for high yoga and workout compliance (ie, >mean number of sessions). Results Effects were found for sports activities (?=40.4?min/week, 95% CI 13.0 to 67.7) and fruit intake (?=2.7 pieces/week, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.7) and were stronger for workers with high compliance to yoga (sport: ?=49.6?min/week, 95% CI 13.9 to 85.2; fruit: ?=3.8 pieces/week, 95% CI 1.1 to 6.4) and workout sessions (sport: ?=72.9?min/week, 95% CI 36.1 to 109.8; fruit: ?=4.0 pieces/week, 95% CI 1.1 to 6.4). The intervention group lowered their need for recovery, when compared to controls (?=?3.5, 95% CI ?6.4 to ?0.54), with stronger effects for high workout compliance (?=?5.3, 95% CI ?9.3 to ?1.3). No effects were found on VPA, aerobic capacity or mental health. Conclusions Implementation of worksite yoga and workout facilities and minimal fruit interventions should be considered by employers to promote transitions into healthier lifestyles and thereby health."

"Objective The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to investigate the effectiveness of the Stay@Work participatory ergonomics (PE) program to prevent low-back and neck pain. Methods A total of 37 departments were randomly allocated to either the intervention (PE) or control group (no PE). During a six-hour meeting, working groups followed the PE steps and composed and prioritized ergonomic measures aimed at preventing low-back and neck pain. Subsequently, working groups were requested to implement the ergonomic measures in the departments. The primary outcomes were low-back and neck pain prevalence and secondary outcomes were pain intensity and duration. Data were collected by questionnaires at baseline, and after 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-months follow-up. Additionally, the course of low-back and neck pain (transitions from no symptoms to symptoms and from symptoms to no symptoms) was modeled. Results The randomization procedure resulted in 19 intervention departments (N=1472 workers) and 18 control departments (N=1575 workers). After 12 months, the intervention was not more effective than the control group in reducing the prevalence of low-back and neck pain or reducing pain intensity and duration. PE did not increase the probability of preventing low-back pain [odds ratio (OR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.97–1.57) or neck pain (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74–1.40). However, PE increased the probability of recovering from low-back pain (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01–1.96), but not from neck pain (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72–1.26).Conclusion PE neither reduced low-back and neck pain prevalence nor pain intensity and duration nor was it effective in the prevention of low-back and neck pain or the recovery from neck pain. However, PE was more effective in the recovery from low-back pain."

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.

"Objective
Extended working lives due to an ageing population will necessitate the maintenance of work ability across the life course. This systematic review aimed to analyze whether workplace interventions positively impact work ability.
Methods
We searched Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Embase databases using relevant terms. Work-based interventions were those focused on individuals, the workplace, or multilevel (combination). Work ability – measured using the work ability index (WAI) or the single-item work ability score (WAS) – was the outcome measure. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development & Evaluation (GRADE) criteria was used to assess evidence quality, and impact statements were developed to synthesize the results. Meta-analysis was undertaken where appropriate.
Results
We reviewed 17 randomized control trials (comprising 22 articles). Multilevel interventions (N=5) included changes to work arrangements and liaisons with supervisors, whilst individual-focused interventions (N=12) involved behavior change or exercise programs. We identified only evidence of a moderate quality for either individual or multilevel interventions aiming to improve work ability. The meta-analysis of 13 studies found a small positive significant effect for interventions on work ability [overall pooled mean 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03–0.21] with no heterogeneity for the effect size (Chi2=11.28, P=0.51; I2=0%).
Conclusions
The meta-analysis showed a small positive effect, suggesting that workplace interventions might improve work ability. However, the quality of the evidence base was only moderate, precluding any firm conclusion. Further high quality studies are require to establish the role of interventions on work ability."

"Objective
This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the contribution of work and lifestyle factors to socioeconomic inequalities in self-rated health among workers.
Methods
A search for cross-sectional and longitudinal studies assessing the contribution of work and/or lifestyle factors to socioeconomic inequalities in self-rated health among workers was performed in PubMed, PsycINFO and Web of Science in March 2017. Two independent reviewers performed eligibility and risk of bias assessment. The median change in odds ratio between models without and with adjustment for work or lifestyle factors across studies was calculated to quantify the contribution of work and lifestyle factors to health inequalities. A best-evidence synthesis was performed.
Results
Of those reviewed, 3 high-quality longitudinal and 17 cross-sectional studies consistently reported work factors to explain part (about one-third) of the socioeconomic health inequalities among workers (grade: strong evidence). Most studies separately investigated physical and psychosocial work factors. In contrast with the 12 cross-sectional studies, 2 longitudinal studies reported no separate contribution of physical workload and physical work environment to health inequalities. Regarding psychosocial work factors, lack of job resources (eg, less autonomy) seemed to contribute to health inequalities, whereas job demands (eg, job overload) might not. Furthermore, 2 longitudinal and 4 cross-sectional studies showed that lifestyle factors explain part (about one-fifth) of the health inequalities (grade: strong evidence).
Conclusions
The large contribution of work factors to socioeconomic health inequalities emphasizes the need for future longitudinal studies to assess which specific work factors contribute to health inequalities."

"Night-shift workers experience disturbances of their circadian rhythm and sleep, which may make them more susceptible to infectious diseases. Therefore, we studied whether night-shift workers are at higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection than day workers. In this prospective study, data were used from 20 questionnaire rounds of the Dutch Lifelines COVID-19 cohort that was initiated in March 2020. In the different questionnaire rounds, 2285 night-shift workers and 23,766 day workers reported whether they had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for demographic, work, and health covariates were used to compare SARS-CoV-2 incidence between night-shift and day workers. From March 2020-January 2021, 3.4% of night-shift workers and 2.2% of day workers reported to have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (p < .001). After adjustment for covariates, night-shift workers had a 37% higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio: 1.37, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.77). In this study, we show that night-shift workers were more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than day workers, which adds to the growing evidence that night-shift work may influence the complex processes involved in infection susceptibility. Further mechanistic insight is needed to understand the relation between night-shift work and (SARS-CoV-2) infection susceptibility."

"Objective
This study investigates the associations between working from home and the presence of MSP during the COVID-19 pandemic. Working from home often involves a lot of sedentary computer screen work and the home working environment might not be optimally equipped, which can lead to health problems, including musculoskeletal pain (MSP).
Methods
Longitudinal data from 16 questionnaire rounds of the Lifelines COVID-19 cohort during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020-February 2021) were used. In total, 40,702 Dutch workers were included. In every round, participants reported whether they worked on location, from home, or hybrid. Logistic Generalized Estimating Equations were used to study the association of work situation with the presence of MSP and the presence of severe MSP.
Results
Working from home was associated with higher risks of having MSP in the lower back (OR: 1.05, 95% CI 1.02–1.08), in the upper back (OR: 1.24, 95% CI 1.18–1.31), and in the neck, shoulder(s) and/or arm(s) (OR: 1.18, 95% CI 1.13–1.22). Hybrid working was associated with higher risks of having pain in the upper back (OR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.02–1.17) and in the neck, shoulder(s) and/or arm(s) (OR: 1.14, 95% CI 1.09–1.20). Both home and hybrid workers had higher risks of severe MSP in the different body areas.
Conclusion
Home workers, and to a smaller extent hybrid workers, had higher risks of having MSP than location workers during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results indicate the importance of measures to prevent MSP in future policies involving working from home."