The use of time flow analysis to describe changes in physical ergonomic work behaviours following a cluster-randomized controlled participatory ergonomic intervention

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61989592%3A15510%2F22%3A73613970" target="_blank" >RIV/61989592:15510/22:73613970 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/61989592:15310/22:73613970

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://1url.cz/Xrbhn" target="_blank" >https://1url.cz/Xrbhn</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxac058" target="_blank" >10.1093/annweh/wxac058</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

The use of time flow analysis to describe changes in physical ergonomic work behaviours following a cluster-randomized controlled participatory ergonomic intervention

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Aim: Evaluations of participatory ergonomic interventions are often challenging as these types of interventions are tailored to the context and need of the workplace in which they are implemented. We aimed to describe how time fow analysis can be used to describe changes in work behaviours following a participatory ergonomic intervention. Method: This study was based on data from a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial with 29 childcare institutions and 116 workers (intervention: n = 60, control: n = 56). Physical behaviours at work were technically measured at baseline and 4-month follow-up. Physical behaviours were expressed in terms of relative work time spent forward bending of the back ≥30°, kneeling, active (i.e. walking, stair climbing and running) and sedentary. Average time fow from baseline to follow-up were calculated for both groups to investigate if work time was allocated differently at follow-up. Results: A total of 116 workers (60 in the intervention and 56 in the control group) had valid accelerometer at baseline and follow-up. The largest group difference in time fowing from baseline to follow-up was observed for forward bending of the back and time spent kneeling. Compared to the control, the intervention group had less time fowing from forward bending of the back to kneeling (intervention: +11 min day, control: +16 min day) and more time fowing from kneeling to sedentary behaviours (intervention: +15 min day, control: +10 min day). Conclusion: The results of this study showed that time fow analysis can be used to reveal changes in work time-use following a participatory ergonomic intervention. For example, the analysis revealed that the intervention group had replaced more work time spent kneeling with sedentary behaviours compared to the control group. This type of information on group differences in time reallocations would not have been possible to obtain by comparing group differences in work time-use following the intervention, supporting the usefulness of time fow analysis as a tool to evaluate complex, context-specifc interventions.

Název v anglickém jazyce

The use of time flow analysis to describe changes in physical ergonomic work behaviours following a cluster-randomized controlled participatory ergonomic intervention

Popis výsledku anglicky

Aim: Evaluations of participatory ergonomic interventions are often challenging as these types of interventions are tailored to the context and need of the workplace in which they are implemented. We aimed to describe how time fow analysis can be used to describe changes in work behaviours following a participatory ergonomic intervention. Method: This study was based on data from a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial with 29 childcare institutions and 116 workers (intervention: n = 60, control: n = 56). Physical behaviours at work were technically measured at baseline and 4-month follow-up. Physical behaviours were expressed in terms of relative work time spent forward bending of the back ≥30°, kneeling, active (i.e. walking, stair climbing and running) and sedentary. Average time fow from baseline to follow-up were calculated for both groups to investigate if work time was allocated differently at follow-up. Results: A total of 116 workers (60 in the intervention and 56 in the control group) had valid accelerometer at baseline and follow-up. The largest group difference in time fowing from baseline to follow-up was observed for forward bending of the back and time spent kneeling. Compared to the control, the intervention group had less time fowing from forward bending of the back to kneeling (intervention: +11 min day, control: +16 min day) and more time fowing from kneeling to sedentary behaviours (intervention: +15 min day, control: +10 min day). Conclusion: The results of this study showed that time fow analysis can be used to reveal changes in work time-use following a participatory ergonomic intervention. For example, the analysis revealed that the intervention group had replaced more work time spent kneeling with sedentary behaviours compared to the control group. This type of information on group differences in time reallocations would not have been possible to obtain by comparing group differences in work time-use following the intervention, supporting the usefulness of time fow analysis as a tool to evaluate complex, context-specifc interventions.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30304 - Public and environmental health

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA22-02392S" target="_blank" >GA22-02392S: Optimalizace 24hodinového pohybového chování pro prevenci obezity v době po pandemii</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2022

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Annals of Work Exposures and Health

ISSN

2398-7308

e-ISSN

2398-7316

Svazek periodika

66

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

9

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

11

Strana od-do

"1199–1209"

Kód UT WoS článku

000841270400001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85153403646