OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of physical, cognitive and organisational ergonomic interventions, or combinations of those interventions for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs among office workers.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Embase, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to 10 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic interventions for preventing work-related upper limb or neck MSDs (or both) among office workers. We only included studies where the baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, was less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the interventions and outcomes in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs (2165 workers). We judged one study to have a low risk of bias and the remaining 14 studies to have a high risk of bias due to small numbers of participants and the potential for selection bias.Physical ergonomic interventionsThere is inconsistent evidence for arm supports and alternative computer mouse designs. There is moderate-quality evidence that an arm support with an alternative computer mouse (two studies) reduced the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99), but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck or shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There is moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck or shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not considerably reduced when comparing an alternative computer mouse and a conventional mouse (two studies; neck or shoulder: RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), and also when comparing an arm support with a conventional mouse and a conventional mouse alone (two studies) (neck or shoulder: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 6.98; right upper limb: RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.96).Workstation adjustment (one study) and sit-stand desks (one study) did not have an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort, compared to no intervention.Organisational ergonomic interventionsThere is very low-quality evidence that supplementary breaks (two studies) reduce discomfort of the neck (MD -0.25; 95% CI -0.40 to -0.11), right shoulder or upper arm (MD -0.33; 95% CI -0.46 to -0.19), and right forearm or wrist or hand (MD -0.18; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.08) among data entry workers.Training in ergonomic interventionsThere is low to very low-quality evidence in five studies that participatory and active training interventions may or may not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb or neck or both.Multifaceted ergonomic interventionsFor multifaceted interventions there is one study (very low-quality evidence) that showed no effect on any of the six upper limb pain outcomes measured in that study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found inconsistent evidence that the use of an arm support or an alternative mouse may or may not reduce the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs. For other physical ergonomic interventions there is no evidence of an effect. For organisational interventions, in the form of supplementary breaks, there is very low-quality evidence of an effect on upper limb discomfort. For training and multifaceted interventions there is no evidence of an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions among office workers.
OBJECTIVE: To review the prevalence of illness, stress, and corresponding risk factors among educators in Malaysia.
METHOD: Scopus, ProQuest, PubMed, ScienceDirect, CAB, and other computerized databases were searched according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies published between January 2013 and April 2019 on the prevalence and associated risk factors of illness and stress among educators (S1 Checklist). The keywords used included educator, teacher, lecturer, academic staff, teaching profession, university staff, academician, faculty, illness, injury, disease, pain, WMSD, dysphonia, hoarseness, stress, mental health, strain, health problem, disorder, and/or Malaysia. Selected studies were evaluated by quality assessment.
RESULTS: Twenty-two articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The prevalence of illness and stress was determined for low back pain (33.3-72.9%); upper back pain (33.33-56.4%); neck/shoulder pain (40.4-80.1%); upper arm discomfort (91.3%); forearm pain (89.6%); wrist pain (16.7-93.2%); hip pain (13.2-40.9%); thigh discomfort (91.8%); lower leg discomfort (90.5%); knee pain (23.7-88.0%); ankle/feet pain (19.3-87.7%); elbow pain (3.5-13.0%); voice disorder (10.4-13.0%) and stress (5.5-25.9%). Sex, education level, teaching experience, quality of life, anxiety, depression, coping styles, and others were reported as associated risk factors across the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a cause for concern regarding musculoskeletal disorders, voice disorder, and stress reported among educators in Malaysia. While most risk factors matched those reported in studies elsewhere, others such as school characteristics (school level, government or private school, and location [rural/urban]) have not been investigated.
PURPOSE: This review article aims to recapitulate the therapeutic potential of berberine and its mechanism of action in treating musculoskeletal disorders.
METHODS: A wide range of literature illustrating the effects of berberine in ameliorating musculoskeletal disorders was retrieved from online electronic databases (PubMed and Medline) and reviewed.
RESULTS: Berberine may potentially retard the progression of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Limited studies reported the effects of berberine in suppressing the proliferation of osteosarcoma cells. These beneficial properties of berberine are mediated in part through its ability to target multiple signaling pathways, including PKA, p38 MAPK, Wnt/β-catenin, AMPK, RANK/RANKL/OPG, PI3K/Akt, NFAT, NF-κB, Hedgehog, and oxidative stress signaling. In addition, berberine exhibited anti-apoptotic, anti-inflammatory, and immunosuppressive properties.
CONCLUSION: The current evidence indicates that berberine may be effective in preventing musculoskeletal disorders. However, findings from in vitro and in vivo investigations await further validation from human clinical trial.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effects of work improvement module using a Kiken Yochi participatory approach intervention in reducing MSS among male migrant pineapple farm plantation workers in Pontian, Johor.
METHODOLOGY: In this interventional study, a total of 68 male migrant workers from two plantation farms were invited to become a participant in this study. In total, 45 participants that consisted of 27 workers for the intervention group and 18 workers for the control group were recruited. The background of workers and MSS were assessed using questionnaires. Ergonomic and postural risks were evaluated and the work tasks with the highest risk were used as a basis for the development of the Kiken Yochi training module. MSS education and training intervention that provided information on proper lifting techniques and education on body mechanics and ergonomics to reduce MSS were implemented to both groups of workers. Kiken Yochi Training was given to the intervention group only. MSS were reassessed after 2 months of the follow-up period. Data was entered into statistical software and were analysed according to objectives.
RESULTS: In terms of the postural risk assessment, almost two-third of the participants (68.5%) had working postures categorized as high risk for MSS. Ergonomic risk assessment identified cultivation, manual weeding and harvesting of pineapples as the work tasks contributing the highest health risks to workers. The most commonly reported MSS between both groups of workers were at the knees, lower back and shoulder area. Upon completion of the delivery of intervention module to both groups of workers, the MSS prevalence reported (after 2 months) were significantly lower for the ankles and feet area within the intervention group.
CONCLUSION: This study suggested that development and implementation of programs using effective participatory approach training methods are able to prevent selected musculoskeletal problems for this occupation. To enhance the effects of such trainings, modifications of work tools in this occupation are desirable.