What are possible barriers and facilitators to implementation of a Participatory Ergonomics programme?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are common among workers. Participatory Ergonomics (PE) is used as an implementation strategy to prevent these symptoms. By following the steps of PE, working groups composed and prioritised ergonomic measures, and developed an implementation plan. Working group members were responsible to implement the ergonomic measures in their departments. Little is known about factors that hamper (barriers) or enhance (facilitators) the implementation of ergonomic measures. This study aimed to identify and understand the possible barriers and facilitators that were perceived during implementation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study is embedded in a cluster randomised controlled trial that investigated the effectiveness of PE to prevent LBP and NP among workers. For the purpose of the current study, questionnaires were sent to 81 working group members. Their answers were used to make a first inventory of possible barriers and facilitators to implementation. Based on the questionnaire information, 15 semi-structured interviews were held to explore the barriers and facilitators in more detail. All interviews were audio taped, transcribed verbatim, and analysed according to a systematic approach.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All possible barriers and facilitators were obtained from questionnaire data, indicating that the semi-structured interviews did not yield information about new factors. Various barriers and facilitators were experienced. The presence of implementation plans for ergonomic measures that were already approved by the management facilitated implementation before the working group meeting. In these cases, PE served as a strategy to improve the implementation of the approved measures. Furthermore, the findings showed that the composition of a working group (<it>i.e.</it>, including decision makers and a worker who led the implementation process) was important. Moreover, stakeholder involvement and collaboration were reported to considerably improve implementation.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study showed that the working group as well as stakeholder involvement and collaboration were important facilitating factors. Moreover, PE was used as a strategy to improve the implementation of existing ergonomic measures. The results can be used to improve PE programmes, and thereby may contribute to the prevention of LBP and NP.</p> <p>Trial registration number</p> <p>ISRCTN27472278</p

Real-World Effectiveness of Add-Onfremanezumab in Patients Receiving OnabotulinumtoxinA for the Prevention of Chronic Migraine in a US Tertiary Headache Center: A Retrospective Chart Review Study

Background: Concomitant fremanezumab, a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway monoclonal antibody (mAb), and onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) improve treatment response compared with onabotA alone in patients with chronic migraine (CM). Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective, observational study that assessed treatment response (change over time in monthly headache days [MHD] and pain intensity [PI]) in adult patients with CM receiving fremanezumab as add-on therapy to onabotA for CM prevention. Results: In the study population (N = 116, age 50.0 ± 13.1, female 85.3%, pre-index onabotA use 46.5 ± 34.2 months) receiving concurrent onabotA and fremanezumab for 17.5 ± 11.6 months, MHD decreased by 3.60 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: −5.26, −1.94, p \u3c 0.001) and PI was reduced by 0.43 (95% CI: −0.77, −0.09, p = 0.012) at the final visit. Statistically significant reductions were seen in both MHD (−4.61, 95% CI: −6.84, −2.39; p \u3c 0.001) and PI (−0.52, 95% CI: −0.84. −0.09; p = 0.017) among patients naïve to mAbs against CGRP or its receptor. No unexpected adverse events were observed. Conclusion: Concomitant fremanezumab and onabotA for CM prevention were effective at reducing the number of MHD and lessening PI, particularly in patients with difficult-to-treat CM who are naïve to mAbs against CGRP or its receptor

Long-term cost and utility consequences of short-term clinically important deterioration in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from the TORCH study.

Purpose: Clinically important deterioration (CID) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a novel composite endpoint that assesses disease stability. The association between short-term CID and future economic and quality of life (QoL) outcomes has not been previously assessed. This analysis considers 3-year data from the TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) study, to examine this question. Patients and methods: This post hoc analysis of TORCH (NCT00268216) compared costs and utilities at 3 years among patients without CID (CID-) and with CID (CID+) at 24 weeks. A positive CID status was defined as either: a deterioration in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of ≥100 mL from baseline; or a ≥4-unit increase from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score; or the incidence of a moderate/severe exacerbation. Patients from all treatment arms were included. Utility change was based on the EQ-5D utility index. Costs were based on healthcare resource utilization from 24 weeks to end of follow-up combined with unit costs for the UK (2016 GBP), and reported as per patient per year (PPPY). Adjusted estimates were generated controlling for baseline characteristics, treatment assignment, and number of CID criteria met. Results: Overall, 3,769 patients completed the study and were included in the analysis (stable CID- patients, n=1,832; unstable CID+ patients, n=1,937). At the end of follow-up, CID- patients had higher mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) utility scores than CID+ patients (0.752 [0.738, 0.765] vs 0.697 [0.685, 0.71]; difference +0.054; P<0.001), and lower costs PPPY (£538 vs £916; difference: £378 [95% CI: £244, £521]; P<0.001). The cost differential was primarily driven by the difference in general hospital ward days (P=0.003). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that achieving early stability in COPD by preventing short-term CID is associated with better preservation of future QoL alongside reduced healthcare service costs

Participatory ergonomics to reduce exposure to psychosocial and physical risk factors for low back pain and neck pain: results of a cluster randomised controlled trial

ABSTRACT Objectives This study investigated the effectiveness of the Stay@Work participatory ergonomics programme to reduce workers 9 exposure to psychosocial and physical risk factors. Methods 37 departments (n¼3047 workers) from four Dutch companies participated in this cluster randomised controlled trial; 19 (n¼1472 workers) were randomised to an intervention group (participatory ergonomics) and 18 (n¼1575 workers) to a control group (no participatory ergonomics). During a 6 h meeting guided by an ergonomist, working groups devised ergonomic measures to reduce psychosocial and physical workload and implemented them within 3 months in their departments. Data on psychosocial and physical risk factors for low back pain and neck pain were collected at baseline and after 6 months. Psychosocial risk factors were measured using the Job Content Questionnaire and physical risk factors using the Dutch Musculoskeletal Questionnaire. Intervention effects were studied using multilevel analysis. Results Intervention group workers significantly increased on decision latitude (0.29 points; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.52) and decision authority (0.16 points; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.28) compared to control workers. However, exposure to awkward trunk working postures significantly increased in the intervention group (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.01) compared to the control group. No significant differences between the intervention and control group were found for the remaining risk factors. After 6 months, loss to follow-up was 35% in the intervention group and 29% in the control group. Conclusion Participatory ergonomics was not effective in reducing exposure to psychosocial and physical risk factors for low back pain and neck pain among a large group of workers. Trial registration ISRCTN27472278

Process evaluation of a participatory ergonomics programme to prevent low back pain and neck pain among workers

Background: Both low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are major occupational health problems. In the workplace, participatory ergonomics (PE) is frequently used on musculoskeletal disorders. However, evidence on the effectiveness of PE to prevent LBP and NP obtained from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is scarce. This study evaluates the process of the Stay@Work participatory ergonomics programme, including the perceived implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures.Methods: This cluster-RCT was conducted at the departments of four Dutch companies (a railway transportation company, an airline company, a steel company, and a university including its university medical hospital). Directly after the randomisation outcome, intervention departments formed a working group that followed the steps of PE during a six-hour working group meeting. Guided by an ergonomist, working groups identified and prioritised risk factors for LBP and NP, and composed and prioritised ergonomic measures. Within three months after the meeting, working groups had to implement the prioritised ergonomic measures at their department. Data on various process components (recruitment, reach, fidelity, satisfaction, and implementation components, i.e., dose delivered and dose received) were collected and analysed on two levels: department (i.e., working group members from intervention departments) and participant (i.e., workers from intervention departments).Results: A total of 19 intervention departments (n = 10 with mental workloads, n = 1 with a light physical workload, n = 4 departments with physical and mental workloads, and n = 4 with heavy physical workloads) were recruited for participation, and the reach among working group members who participated was high (87%). Fidelity and satisfaction towards the PE programme rated by the working group members was good (7.3 or higher). The same was found for the Stay@Work ergocoach training (7.5 or higher). In total, 66 ergonomic measures were prioritised by the working groups. Altogether, 34% of all prioritised ergonomic measures were perceived as implemented (dose delivered), while the workers at the intervention departments perceived 26% as implemented (dose received).Conclusions: PE can be a successful method to develop and to prioritise ergonomic measures to prevent LBP and NP. Despite the positive rating of the PE programme the implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures was lower than expected. © 2010 Driessen et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Stay@Work: Participatory Ergonomics to prevent low back and neck pain among workers: design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are a major public health problem with considerable costs for individuals, companies and society. Therefore, prevention is imperative. The Stay@Work study investigates the (cost-)effectiveness of Participatory Ergonomics (PE) to prevent LBP and NP among workers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a randomised controlled trial (RCT), a total of 5,759 workers working at 36 departments of four companies is expected to participate in the study at baseline. The departments consisting of about 150 workers are pre-stratified and randomised. The control departments receive usual practice and the intervention departments receive PE. Within each intervention department a working group is formed including eight workers, a representative of the management, and an occupational health and safety coordinator. During a one day meeting, the working group follows the steps of PE in which the most important risk factors for LBP and NP, and the most adequate ergonomic measures are identified on the basis of group consensus. The implementation of ergonomic measures at the department is performed by the working group. To improve the implementation process, so-called 'ergocoaches' are trained.</p> <p>The primary outcome measure is an episode of LBP and NP. Secondary outcome measures are actual use of ergonomic measures, physical workload, psychosocial workload, intensity of pain, general health status, sick leave, and work productivity. The cost-effectiveness analysis is performed from the societal and company perspective. Outcome measures are assessed using questionnaires at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Data on the primary outcome as well as on intensity of pain, sick leave, work productivity, and health care costs are collected every 3 months.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Prevention of LBP and NP is beneficial for workers, employers, and society. If the intervention is proven (cost-)effective, the intervention can have a major impact on LBP and NP prevention and, thereby, on work disability prevention. Results are expected in 2010.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN27472278</p

Cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for neck pain: a systematic review on economic evaluations

PURPOSE: Various conservative interventions have been used for the treatment of non-specific neck pain. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for non-specific neck pain. METHODS: Clinical and economic electronic databases, reference lists and authors’ databases were searched up to 13 January 2011. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion, performed the risk of bias assessment and data extraction. RESULTS: A total of five economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted alongside randomised controlled trials and included a cost-utility analysis, and four studies also conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis. Most often, the economic evaluation was conducted from a societal or a health-care perspective. One study found that manual therapy was dominant over physiotherapy and general practitioner care, whilst behavioural graded activity was not cost-effective compared to manual therapy. The combination of advice and exercise with manual therapy was not cost-effective compared to advice and exercise only. One study found that acupuncture was cost-effective compared to a delayed acupuncture intervention, and another study found no differences on cost-effectiveness between a brief physiotherapy intervention compared to usual physiotherapy. Pooling of the data was not possible as heterogeneity existed between the studies on participants, interventions, controls, outcomes, follow-up duration and context related socio-political differences. CONCLUSION: At present, the limited number of studies and the heterogeneity between studies warrant no definite conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for non-specific neck pain

Cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for neck pain: a systematic review on economic evaluations

PURPOSE: Various conservative interventions have been used for the treatment of non-specific neck pain. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for non-specific neck pain. METHODS: Clinical and economic electronic databases, reference lists and authors’ databases were searched up to 13 January 2011. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion, performed the risk of bias assessment and data extraction. RESULTS: A total of five economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted alongside randomised controlled trials and included a cost-utility analysis, and four studies also conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis. Most often, the economic evaluation was conducted from a societal or a health-care perspective. One study found that manual therapy was dominant over physiotherapy and general practitioner care, whilst behavioural graded activity was not cost-effective compared to manual therapy. The combination of advice and exercise with manual therapy was not cost-effective compared to advice and exercise only. One study found that acupuncture was cost-effective compared to a delayed acupuncture intervention, and another study found no differences on cost-effectiveness between a brief physiotherapy intervention compared to usual physiotherapy. Pooling of the data was not possible as heterogeneity existed between the studies on participants, interventions, controls, outcomes, follow-up duration and context related socio-political differences. CONCLUSION: At present, the limited number of studies and the heterogeneity between studies warrant no definite conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for non-specific neck pain

Real-world effectiveness of add-on fremanezumab in patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine in a US tertiary headache center: A retrospective chart review study

Background: Concomitant fremanezumab, a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway monoclonal antibody (mAb), and onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) improve treatment response compared with onabotA alone in patients with chronic migraine (CM). Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective, observational study that assessed treatment response (change over time in monthly headache days [MHD] and pain intensity [PI]) in adult patients with CM receiving fremanezumab as add-on therapy to onabotA for CM prevention. Results: In the study population ( N = 116, age 50.0 ± 13.1, female 85.3%, pre-index onabotA use 46.5 ± 34.2 months) receiving concurrent onabotA and fremanezumab for 17.5 ± 11.6 months, MHD decreased by 3.60 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: −5.26, −1.94, p < 0.001) and PI was reduced by 0.43 (95% CI: −0.77, −0.09, p = 0.012) at the final visit. Statistically significant reductions were seen in both MHD (−4.61, 95% CI: −6.84, −2.39; p < 0.001) and PI (−0.52, 95% CI: −0.84. −0.09; p = 0.017) among patients naïve to mAbs against CGRP or its receptor. No unexpected adverse events were observed. Conclusion: Concomitant fremanezumab and onabotA for CM prevention were effective at reducing the number of MHD and lessening PI, particularly in patients with difficult-to-treat CM who are naïve to mAbs against CGRP or its receptor