Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hoeben Ergonomic 2014
Hoeben Ergonomic 2014
Hoeben Ergonomic 2014
Article
Neck Disability Index and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire.
The female participants were assessed over the four week phases as they performed
high intensity visual display unit work. The results were compiled and tabulated.
RESULTS: Both the control and intervention ergonomic chairs showed a reduction in both the mean and variance of pain and
muscle spasm. The second participant also showed an increase in productivity with both chairs.
CONCLUSION: The introduction of an ergonomic chair shows a reduction in VAS intensity and frequency for pain and muscle
spasm, as well as a reduction in variance of the symptoms. Both chairs showed a similar reduction in symptoms, thus indicating
almost equivalent benefit from the use of both ergonomic chairs.
KEYWORDS: ERGONOMIC CHAIR, UPPER QUADRANT PAIN AND SPASM, DISABILITY, PRODUCTIVITY,
OFFICE WORKERS
tone UT,
scalenes & LS
Cx – cervical spine; Tx- thoracic spine; UT-upper trapezius; LS-levator scapulae; OMPQ- Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire
Study phase A1 B A2 C A3
Range (mm) Range (mm) Range (mm) Range (mm) Range (mm)
Outcome measure
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Pain: Frequency (VAFS) (/100)
Participant 1 18 (5-23) 9 (6-15) 3 (7-10) 6 (5-11) 4 (6-10)
12.125 (5.06) 9.333 (3.14) 9 (1.29) 8.857 (2.04) 9 (1.60)
Participant 2 49 (19-68) 12 (3-15) 2 (3-5) 7 (0-7) 4 (0-4)
42.5 (21.39) 5.75 (4.89) 3.5 (0.93) 1.625 (2.56) 0.88 (1.64)
Pain: Intensity (VAIS) (/100)
Participant 1
21 (7-28) 15 (6-21) 5 (6-11) 5 (5-10) 7 (4-11)
11.63 (7.95) 9.33 (6.06) 8.26 (1.70) 7.17 (2.23) 7.13 (2.1)
Participant 2
51 (16-67) 7 (3-10) 2 (3-5) 9 (0-9) 7 (0-7)
36 (18.99) 4.75 (3.54) 3.25 (0.71) 1.88 (3.18) 1.5 (2.83)
NDI (/50)
Participant 1 2 (1-3) 1 (2-3) 1 (2-3) 0 (3) 0 (3)
2 (0.82) 2.67 (0.56) 2.67 (0.56) 3 (0) 3 (0)
Participant 2 11 (8-19) 2 (0-2) 4 (0-4) 2 (0-2) 2 (0-2)
12.5 (5.45) 1.250 (0.98) 2 (1.83 0.5 (1) 1 (0.82
WPAI
Participant 1 0 0 0 0 0
Participant 2 40 (20-60) 20 (0-20) 10 (0-10) 10 (0-10) 0
(expressed as a percentage) 40 (18.257) 7.5 (9.574) 2.5 (5) 5 (5.773) 0
DISCUSSION reported pain and muscle spasm. This cles (Marcus et al. 2002). The corrected
Ergonomic adaptations are a common research is consistent with the results elbow angle, and head-on-neck position
workplace intervention to reduce upper of Amick et al (2003) and Robertson et discourages extreme postural angles
quadrant musculoskeletal symptoms al (2009). However their interventions which are associated with sitting-related
(Anderson 2006). This is the first study included specific posture and office pain (Prins 2008).
to report whether an ergonomic office setup ergonomic training together with In this study, the participants did not
chair, irrespective of arm rest adjustabil- the ergonomic chair. receive any education regarding postural
ity, could have an effect on pain, muscle The underlying mechanism of this alignment or sitting behaviour. The par-
tension, productivity and disability. The positive change in symptoms remains ticipants were informed of the features of
findings of this single subject design debatable. One probable explanation is the chairs and as such could adjust them
study illustrated an immediate reduc- that there was a change in relative pos- according to their own comfort and dis-
tion in the intensity and variance of the tural alignment of the neck, thoracic cretion (Amick III et al. 2003, Robertson
symptoms following the introduction spine and upper limbs. In this study, we et al. 2009). As neck and upper quadrant
of the ergonomic chair, irrespective of specifically ensured that the elbows were sitting positions vary in symptomatic as
which chair was allocated for the first positioned in such a manner that they well as asymptomatic subjects (Szeto,
intervention phase. Two strengths of were supported on the arm rests at the Straker & Raine 2002, Szeto, Straker
this study were the random allocation of same height as the keyboard. The use of & O'Sullivan 2005), it may be that it
the chairs and that the participants were a footrest ensured that the height of the is important for physiotherapists to
unaware of the cost of each chair as well chair could be correct according to the empower clients on how to adjust their
as which of the chairs was the control or desk height while the participant’s feet own chairs rather than implementing
intervention. This contributes towards remained supported. Previous research strategies which are aimed at teaching
the validity of the study outcomes. has indicated that adjusting the elbow uniform posture. Prolonged static pos-
The findings illustrated a reduction position in this manner reduces strain tures have been shown as a contributing
in both frequency and intensity of self- on the upper quadrant joints and mus- factor to the development of UQWMSD
(Griffiths, Mackey & Adamson 2007), first intervention phase. This change is the majority of the participants (Dainoff,
educating a client to adjust their sitting irrespective of which ergonomic chair the Cohen & Dainoff 2005).
position occasionally may reduce this participants were given. A similar effect As the footstool was introduced for
risk. This may also explain why the on the pain cycle is suggested by Clark et Participant 1 from the start of the study, it
symptoms were not exacerbated dur- al (2012) as a response to manual therapy may be the cause of the low scoring of the
ing the washout and final phases of this where by the pain-spasm-pain cycle is VAS from the beginning of the baseline
study since participants indicated that disrupted by a physiotherapy interven- phase A1. In the subjective assessment,
they adjusted their own office chairs. tion (Clark et al. 2012). This may explain Participant 1 claimed that her pain was
The changes to the mean and variance the maintenance of symptom reduction 5/10. However, her baseline mean was
of the outcomes in the first intervention throughout the washout phases of this lower from the start. As the change in
phase are maintained throughout the study. Similar results of prolonged effect the chair was shown to be almost imme-
rest of the study phases, including the of an ergonomic intervention were shown diate, it is possible that the introduction
washout A2 and final A3 phases. There in an International study by Dainoff et of the footstool improved Participant 1’s
appears to be a break in the chronic pain al. 2005 where the improvements were outcomes immediately too. The footstool
and muscle spasm cycle following the still present at one year follow up for would have altered Participant 1’s sitting
Figure 2: Graphs depicting mean values for VAS outcomes for Participant 1 showing variability of data for
each phase
position and thus her upper quadrant pos- tions. However it acknowledged that the not return during the washout phase, it is
ture and muscle activity. Further research research is of only moderate strength. less likely that the subconscious effect of
into the effect of providing only a foot- Brewer et al also noted that, although using a new chair was the main cause of
stool is required to analyse this effect. ergonomic chairs have been shown with the change in outcomes. This study only
Participant 2 showed a reduction in both moderate evidence to be beneficial, the researched the effect of the chair on upper
mean and variability following the first feature of arm rest adjustability has not quadrant symptoms and research into the
intervention phase. These results may have been shown to be definitively benefi- effect of pain in other areas is warranted.
been more prominent when compared to cial (Brewer et al. 2006). The improve- Future studies into prevention of
participant 1’s results as participant 2’s ment in the disability shows the benefit work-related musculoskeletal dysfunc-
own/original chair was more basic. It at an individual level for the client or tion should also be conducted.
lacked arm rests and had a lower back rest employee to invest in their own office
compared to the ergonomic chairs pro- equipment. The findings illustrated that CONCLUSION
vided for the study and when compared the added benefit of adjustable arm rests The aim of this study was to ascertain
to participant 1’s own chair (figure 1a and may be small. However caution must the effect of a fully adjustable computer
figure 1b). Participant 1’s chair was similar be applied as this study did not aim to workstation chair compared to a chair
to the intervention chairs, but lacked full assess durability or long term effects to with limited adjustability (armrests
adjustability. The effect of arm rests on estimate cost effectiveness. not adjustable) on sitting-related upper
pain and symptoms has been shown in the quadrant pain, muscle spasm, disability
review by Kennedy et al (2010) to have a Limitations and in female office workers. The findings of
positive influence on upper quadrant pain recommendations: this series of single subject (N=2) study
and symptoms. However, not all stud- This study had only two participants illustrated that both intervention chairs
ies on the subject concur as some studies and larger studies are needed before the reduced the intensity, frequency and
show no effect (Brewer et al. 2006). results can be generalised. The wash- variability of pain and muscle spasm.
Economic cost of an ergonomic chair out phase may need to be lengthened to This implies that office chairs without
is an important consideration when plan- the point where the subject’s outcomes adjustable armrests may be equivalent to
ning a computer work station interven- return to that of the baseline phase. This more expensive fully adjustable chairs
tion. This research illustrates that the will make the comparison of the inter- with respect to pain, muscle spasm and
lower cost chair may be adequate to vention phases more obvious. disability. Further research with larger
improve musculoskeletal symptoms in Blinding of the researcher as to which population studies and longer follow–up
the short term. The change in produc- chair was provided during the interven- time frames is now required to affirm
tivity shown by participant 2 may help tion phases would have added to the these findings in a representative sample.
encourage employees and companies quality of the study.
to invest in improved ergonomic office The Hawthorne effect (Adair 1984), ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
equipment with the minimal require- which is the alteration of behaviour by The South African Society of Physio-
ments of lumbar and height adjustabil- the subjects of a study because they are therapy is thanked for support and fund-
ity as well as footrests. The review by being observed, may have had an effect in ing for the purchase of the equipment
Tompa et al (2010) had similar sugges- this study. However, as the symptoms did required for the study.