Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Protocol - Intervention

Work‐break schedules for preventing musculoskeletal disorders in workers

This is not the most recent version

Collapse all Expand all

Abstract

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To compare the effectiveness of different work break schedules for preventing or decreasing WRMS in workers.

Background

Description of the condition

Over the past decades, companies in the industrial sector have automated and standardised their operations (Docherty 2002), resulting in work tasks becoming more similar, and employees being exposed to more repetitive and monotonous work (Mathiassen 2006). Repetition and monotony are two important characteristics of work that increase the risks of an employee developing work‐related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs; Buckle 2002). The most vulnerable body sites for WRMSDs include the back, arms, hands, wrists (Barr 2004), shoulders and neck (Eltayeb 2009). Several site‐specific and lower‐extremity disorders have been identified in the literature, including low back pain (Irwin 2007), epicondylitis (Herquelot 2013), carpal tunnel syndrome (Palmer 2007), de Quervain’s tenosynovitis (Stahl 2015), thoracic outlet syndrome (Laulan 2011), meniscal tears (Snoeker 2013), osteoarthritis (Ezzat 2014) and plantar fasciitis (Foye 2007).

WRMSDs place a heavy burden on current society, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the costs associated with work absenteeism due to such disorders. Prevalence rates and lost working days vary across countries. For example, WRMSDs accounted for 41% of all work‐related illnesses in 2015 in the UK and resulted in 8.8 million working days lost (HSE 2016). In the Netherlands, WRMSDs accounted for 29% of work absenteeism and 19% of work disability in 2013 (ArboNed 2015). In Germany, WRMSDs accounted for 22% of work absenteeism in 2015 (DAK 2017). In general, the prevalence of WRMSDs increases with age and is higher in males than in females (HSE 2016).

Description of the intervention

A potential solution for reducing the incidence of WRMSDs is to design interventions that prevent exposure to potential risk factors. Due to the multifactorial aetiology of WRMSD (Armstrong 1993; Roquelaure 2009), this is quite a challenge. Nevertheless, several studies have suggested conducting interventions at the level of work break frequency or duration or both, or type of exposure at work (Burger 1959) and have investigated the effectiveness of increasing break frequency, or changing the pattern of breaks whilst measuring effects on muscle fatigue, discomfort level and work performance (e.g. Galinsky 2007; Luger 2015; Sundelin 1993).

This review will focus on work‐break schedule interventions specifically aimed at preventing work‐related musculoskeletal (WRMS) symptoms among workers. The goal of work‐break schedules is to interrupt or decrease long periods of repetitive or monotonous workloads and periods in which workers have to adopt awkward postures. We define a work break as a temporary disengagement from work, with the following characteristics.

  • Frequency: work breaks provided over a working period or working day may differ in number.

  • Duration: work breaks may be provided as: micro breaks, such as breaks lasting up to two minutes; short breaks, such as a coffee break; or longer breaks, such as a lunch break.

  • Type: different types of work breaks may be provided, such as passive or rest breaks (Brewer 2006), active breaks involving high‐intensity or stretching exercises, and walking (Falla 2007) or cognitive breaks (Mathiassen 2014).

How the intervention might work

In situations where WRMSDs are prevalent, it may be advantageous to apply work breaks. It is generally assumed that work breaks may provide a recovery period for any musculoskeletal structure that is stressed during the working process (the process thought to precede the pathogenesis of WRMSDs) (Rashedi 2015), thus helping to maintain work performance (Tucker 2003). However, work breaks may differ in frequency, duration and type.

Frequency of work breaks

On a regular working day, employees are often offered one or more coffee breaks and a longer lunch break, which differs for each country considering legal prescriptions. Studies have investigated whether providing more frequent breaks could be beneficial. For example, in a cross‐over study among field workers who completed three days of strawberry harvesting while in a stooped position, workers were exposed to either the regular‐break pattern (i.e. two 10‐minute rest breaks and one 30‐minute lunch break) or to the intervention rest‐break pattern (i.e. four extra five‐minute breaks in addition to the regular‐break pattern) (Faucett 2007). The intervention rest‐break pattern improved musculoskeletal symptoms and fatigue scores among workers, and their productivity did not differ from that of workers using the regular‐break pattern. A recent study among workers from companies in various sectors showed that a higher frequency of rest‐breaks is associated with less work‐related fatigue and distress (Blasche 2017). While both of these studies provide subjective results in favour of more frequent work breaks, objective findings are currently scarce and make it difficult to give practical advice on a good work‐break pattern.

Duration of work breaks

The duration of work breaks may play a crucial role in the recovery of tissues and muscles. A multicentre cohort study among surgeons investigated the effectiveness of intraoperative micro breaks lasting about 1.5 to 2 minutes, provided at 20‐ to 40‐minute intervals (Park 2017). This study showed that micro breaks can be practical and efficient in reducing musculoskeletal pain without prolonging the overall operative time. A cross‐over experimental study showed that musculoskeletal fatigue was lower among surgeons taking 20‐second micro breaks than among surgeons who did not take such breaks (Dorion 2013). In both of these studies, task duration and work accuracy were not affected, an important factor in surgical work since other human lives are at stake. Additionally it has been shown that 30‐second micro breaks in computer work provided every 20 or 40 minutes improved perceived discomfort in all body areas and had no detrimental effect on productivity (McLean 2011). Hence, a number of studies have shown promising results for the provision of work breaks of varying durations. However, studies are still lacking that would aim to identify the optimal duration of work breaks by comparing different break‐durations.

Type of work breaks

Finally, the type of work break may play a role in the amount of recovery the tissues and muscles actually receive. In general, there are two types of work breaks that can be implemented: passive breaks in which workers just rest, or active breaks in which workers are instructed to, for example, stretch, walk or perform a cognitive task. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving visual display unit workers with musculoskeletal symptoms investigated two types of break activities (stretching or dynamic contractions) to be conducted during three‐minute work breaks (Nakphet 2014). The results showed that both types of break activities had a favourable and similar effect on muscle discomfort and productivity. Such promising results were, however, not evident in a recent cross‐over trial in which individuals performing a one‐hour pick‐and‐place task received one‐minute active or passive breaks every 12 minutes (Luger 2015). Neither type of supplementary break influenced perceived discomfort when compared with one hour of work without breaks. Hence, the literature provides some information regarding the most suitable types of work breaks, but the studies providing this information vary in study design and in the settings in which the types of breaks were investigated.

Hence, although there is some knowledge on the effectiveness of work‐break schedules based on their frequency, duration and type, an overview of the results of studies investigating one or more of these aspects of work break schedules is lacking.

The drawback of work breaks is that their implementation is highly dependent on the type of work being carried out (i.e. not all work settings allow for a flexible arrangement of work and breaks). Additionally, the employer and employee both need to accept the changes required by the work‐break pattern: (1) the employer by providing extra time for breaks, and (2) the employee by accepting a longer presence at work to cover more break time but the same amount of work time. The diversity of study populations may give more insight into the effectiveness of work‐break interventions with regard to employees’ age and gender, since the prevalence of WRMSDs differs with age and gender (HSE 2016). Acceptability, gender and age may also impact the effectiveness of work‐break interventions.

Why it is important to do this review

Musculoskeletal disorders pose a large burden on current society due to their high prevalence but also due to the substantial costs associated with the lost work days and lost productivity associated with these disorders (March 2014). This underlines the importance of finding effective interventions to prevent WRMSDs, of which work breaks may provide one potential option.

A systematic review on the use of workplace interventions for preventing musculoskeletal disorders in computer users identified work breaks as one possible type of intervention (Brewer 2006). In this review, four of six studies with observation periods ranging from two weeks to up to seven months found the effects of passive work breaks on musculoskeletal health to be inconsistent. The remaining two studies found moderate evidence that active work breaks do not influence musculoskeletal health. A more recent cluster RCT investigated the use of a prevention programme that included a work‐break tool to improve the balance between work and recovery among construction workers (Oude Hengel 2013). This study found that, although not significant, the prevention programme was associated with a decline in the prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms and long‐term sick leave. However, the work‐break tool was only one of three tools comprising the prevention programme, which also included physical therapy sessions to lower the physical workload and empowerment training sessions to increase influence of workers at the worksite (Oude Hengel 2013). Hence, the results of the prevention programme cannot be attributed solely to any of the three tools within the programme. Another RCT investigated a 10‐week active rest programme among workers, consisting of a warm‐up, cognitive functional training, aerobic exercise, resistance training and a cool‐down, for 10 minutes per day and three times per week (Michishita 2017). The intervention programme was implemented in employees’ lunch breaks and aimed to improve personal relationships, mental and physical health, and work ability. Several, but not all, aspects related to personal relationships and mental health improved after the programme, which the authors attributed to the increased activity during lunch breaks.

Overall, the evidence for the application of work‐break interventions is not straightforward and, although WRMSDs are a clear worldwide problem, there is currently no systematic review of the effectiveness of work‐break interventions in preventing WMRSDs. With this review we aim to investigate the available RCT evidence for the effectiveness of work‐break interventions in order to provide direction for optimising current prevention approaches and to help prioritise future research directions.

Objectives

To compare the effectiveness of different work break schedules for preventing or decreasing WRMS in workers.

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

We will include RCTs, quasi‐RCTs (in which the method used for the allocation of participants is not random, such as alternate allocation, allocation by date of birth, or day of the week), cluster‐randomised trials (randomisation of a group of people such as a work group or workplace rather than randomisation of the individual) and cross‐over RCTs. We will include only studies conducted in the real workplace, excluding studies conducted under laboratory conditions. We will include studies reported as full‐text, those published in abstract form only and unpublished data.

Types of participants

We will include trials enrolling healthy adult workers (aged 18 years or above).

Types of interventions

We will include studies that have evaluated one or more of the following types of work‐break interventions.

  • Changes in the frequency of work breaks

    • Intervention: higher (i.e. > 3 per day)

    • Control: low (i.e. ≤ 3 per day)

  • Changes in the duration of work breaks

    • Intervention: short (i.e. ≤ 15 minute) or micro (i.e. ≤ 1 minute)

    • Control: 15 to 30 minutes (15‐minute breaks during the morning and afternoon shifts, 30‐minute breaks halving the 8‐hour working day; see the study by Galinsky 2000 for a discussion about conventional work‐break schedules)

  • Changes in the type of work break

    • Intervention: active or cognitive

    • Control: passive

These work‐break interventions may be tested or applied in work situations. To be included, a study has to compare the intervention with a control (no intervention or another type of work‐break intervention).

Types of outcome measures

We will include studies that have assessed the effect of a work‐break schedule on at least one of the following primary outcomes.

Primary outcomes

  1. Participant‐reported musculoskeletal pain

    1. Validated scales assessing pain (e.g. visual analogue scale (VAS)); scales assessing musculoskeletal symptoms or the reporting of newly diagnosed WRMSDs referring to injuries that affect musculoskeletal, peripheral nervous and neurovascular systems caused or aggravated by occupational exposure

  2. Participant‐reported discomfort or fatigue

    1. Discomfort measured on a (dis)comfort scale, or fatigue measured on a fatigue scale (e.g. numeric rating scale)

  3. Productivity or work performance

    1. Assessment of the level of work functioning, change in work productivity or work time loss as assessed by outcome measures such as the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (Kessler 2003) or similar instruments

Secondary outcomes

  1. Workload changes

    1. Objective measurements of force or force reduction, muscular load or electromyographic manifestations of muscular fatigue, or endurance time as measured by strain gauge force transducers, dynamometers or electromyography; subjective measurements of workload, such as those assessed using questionnaires (e.g. the NASA TLX questionnaire (Hart 1988))

Search methods for identification of studies

Electronic searches

We will systematically search for all eligible published and unpublished trials. We will impose no restrictions on language of publication, which means we will arrange for the translation of key sections of foreign‐language studies or attempt to find native speakers or people who are proficient in the publications’ language to assist with translating these studies for potential inclusion.

Our search strategy for the MEDLINE database is shown in (Appendix 1); this search strategy will be adjusted to the formats of other databases, when necessary. We will search the following electronic databases from inception to present to identify potential studies that are already published:

  • Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Wiley Online Library);

  • MEDLINE (PubMed) (Appendix 1);

  • Embase (embase.com) (OVID);

  • CINAHL (EBSCO);

  • PsycINFO (ProQuest) (OVID);

  • SCOPUS (Elsevier);

  • Web of Science (Thomson Reuters).

We will also conduct a search for unpublished trials in ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (who.int/ictrp/en/).

Searching other resources

We will check the reference lists of all primary studies included and those of review articles for additional references. We will contact experts in the field to identify additional unpublished studies.

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

Will will follow a two‐stage plan for selecting studies for inclusion in the review. In stage one, two review authors (TL, BS) will independently screen the titles and abstracts of the identified citations, and obtain the full text of all studies that at least one author deems potentially eligible. In stage two, two review authors (TL, BS) will independently assess the full publication for eligibility and compare their results. We will tabulate the characteristics of excluded studies in the ‘Characteristics of excluded studies’ table. We will resolve any disagreement through discussion or, if required, by consulting a third review author (MR). We will identify and exclude duplicates, and collate multiple reports of the same study so that each study rather than each report is the unit of interest in the review. We will record the selection process in sufficient detail to complete a PRISMA flow diagram (Moher 2009).

When our systematic searches identify studies conducted by one of the review authors, we will avoid a conflict of interest by having all decisions concerning inclusion and exclusion made by review authors who were not involved with the study.

Data extraction and management

We will input study characteristics and outcome data into a data collection form that we will pilot on at least one study in the review. One review author (TL) will extract the following study characteristics from the included studies.

  • General: authors and year of publication.

  • Methods: study design, total duration of study, study location, study setting, withdrawals, and date of study.

  • Participants: number, randomisation, mean age or age range, sex/gender, occupation, health status, inclusion criteria, and exclusion criteria,

  • Interventions: description of intervention, comparison, duration, intensity, content of both intervention and control condition, co‐interventions, and washout period including the length between the application of the intervention and the control or vice versa (applicable to cross‐over RCTs).

  • Outcomes: description of primary and secondary outcomes specified and collected, and time points reported.

  • Notes: funding for trial, and notable conflicts of interest of trial authors.

Two review authors (TL, BS) will independently extract outcome data from the included studies. We will note in the ‘Characteristics of included studies’ table if outcome data was not reported in a usable way. We will resolve disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third review author (MR). One review author (TL) will transfer data into Review Manager 5 (RevMan 2014); a second review author (BS) will spot‐check study characteristics for accuracy against the trial report. Should we decide to include studies published in a language in which our author team is not proficient, we will arrange for a native speaker or someone sufficiently proficient in the language to fill in the data extraction form for us.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Two review authors (TL, BS) will independently assess the risk of bias in each study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). We will resolve any disagreements through discussion or by involving a third review author (MR). We will assess the risk of bias according to the following domains:

  1. random sequence generation;

  2. allocation concealment;

  3. blinding of participants and personnel;

  4. blinding of outcome assessment;

  5. incomplete outcome data;

  6. selective outcome reporting;

  7. carry‐over;

  8. other bias.

We will grade each potential source of bias as high, low or unclear, and provide a quote from the study report together with a justification for our judgement in the ‘Risk of bias’ table. We will summarise the ‘Risk of bias’ judgements across different studies for each of the domains listed. We will consider blinding separately for different key outcomes where necessary (e.g. for the assessment of blinding of outcomes, the risk of bias for a diagnosis of musculoskeletal disorder may be very different than that for a participant‐reported discomfort scale). Where information on risk of bias relates to unpublished data or to correspondence with a trialist, we will note this in the ‘Risk of bias’ table.

We consider random sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and carry‐over (applicable to cross‐over RCTs) to be key domains. We will judge a study to have a high risk of bias when we judge one or more key domains to have a high risk of bias. Conversely, we will judge a study to have a low risk of bias when we judge all key domains to have a low risk of bias.

Assesment of bias in conducting the systematic review

We will conduct the review according to this published protocol and report any deviations from it in the ‘Differences between protocol and review’ section of the systematic review.

Measures of treatment effect

We will enter the outcome data for each study into the data tables in RevMan 2014) in order to calculate the treatment effects. We will use risk ratios rather than odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes, hazard ratios for time‐to‐event data, and mean differences or standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes, or other type of data as reported by the authors of the studies. If only effect estimates and their 95% confidence intervals or standard errors are reported in studies, we will enter these data into RevMan 2014 using the generic inverse variance method. We will ensure that higher scores for continuous outcomes have the same meaning for each outcome, explain the direction to the reader, and report where the directions were reversed if necessary. When the results cannot be entered in either way, we will describe them in the ‘Characteristics of included studies’ tables, or enter the data into ‘Additional tables’.

For cross‐over trials that report continuous outcomes, we will use the paired analysis as reported by the authors and include the mean difference between the intervention and control conditions and its standard error into RevMan 2014 using the generic inverse variance method for calculating the effect estimate. In cases where the authors have not reported paired analysis, we will conduct the analysis ourselves based on the reported or imputed correlation between the outcomes of the intervention and the control conditions, as advised in Chapter 16 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). For dichotomous outcomes, we will also use the paired analyses reported by the authors, but if these are missing we will calculate odds ratios and adjust their confidence intervals for the paired nature of the data according to Elbourne 2002, based on the reported or imputed correlation between the outcomes of the intervention and the control conditions.

Unit of analysis issues

For studies that employ a cluster‐randomised design and that report sufficient data to be included in meta‐analysis but do not make an allowance for the design effect, we will calculate the design effect based on a fairly large assumed intracluster correlation of 0.10. We consider 0.10 to be a realistic estimate based on intracluster correlation values typically seen in cluster RCTs (Campbell 2001). For the calculations, we will follow the methods as stated in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).

Dealing with missing data

We will contact investigators or study sponsors in order to verify key study characteristics and obtain missing numerical outcome data where possible (e.g. when a study is published in abstract form only). Where this is not possible and the missing data are thought to introduce serious bias, we will explore the impact of including such studies in the overall assessment of results using sensitivity analysis. If we are unable to obtain these data even after contacting authors, we will list such studies under ‘Studies awaiting classification’.

If numerical outcome data, such as standard deviations or correlation coefficients, are missing and cannot be obtained from the authors, we will calculate them from other available statistics, such as P values, according to the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).

Assessment of heterogeneity

We will assess the clinical homogeneity of the results of the included studies based on similarity of population, intervention, outcome and follow‐up. We will follow the algorithm provided by (Verbeek 2012).

We will consider populations as similarwhen they are exposed to high physical demands (i.e. industrial or factory work) and low physical demands (i.e. computer or social work) .

We will consider interventions as similar when they belong to one of three intervention categories as defined in the section 'Types of interventions'. Interventions that address a low or high work‐break frequency will be considered different; interventions that address a long, short or micro work‐break duration will be considered different; and interventions that address a passive, active or cognitive work‐break type will be considered different.

We will consider any method used to record participant‐reported complaints (e.g. Borg scale, VAS, questionnaires) and participant‐reported workloads (e.g. the TLX questionnaire) to be similar. We will consider any standardized questionnaire used for the assessment of work performance and productivity (e.g. Health and Work Performance Questionnaire) to be similar. We will consider any objective technique related to workload changes (e.g. force, endurance time, muscle activity) to be similar.

We will regard short‐term (up to six weeks), medium‐term (from six weeks to up to six months) and long‐term (more than six months) follow‐up times to be different.

We will assess heterogeneity by the visual inspection of forest plots and by using the I² statistic. We will then quantify the degree of heterogeneity (Higgins 2011), and consider an I² value greater than 75% to represent considerable heterogeneity. In the presence of substantial heterogeneity and a sufficient number of studies, we will explore possible causes by conducting prespecified subgroup analyses.

Assessment of reporting biases

If we are able to pool seven or more trials in any single meta‐analysis, we will assess publication bias by funnel plots and examine funnel plot asymmetry using the Egger’s test (Higgins 2011).

Data synthesis

We will pool data from studies judged to be clinically homogeneous using RevMan 2014. If more than one study provides usable data in any single comparison, we will perform meta‐analyses. We will use a random‐effects model to pool the results of studies (Borenstein 2009). When I² is higher than 75% we will not pool the results of studies in meta‐analysis.

We will include 95% confidence intervals for all estimates. We will narratively describe skewed data reported as medians and interquartile ranges.

Where multiple trial arms are reported in a single trial, we will include only the relevant arms. If two comparisons are combined in the same meta‐analysis, we will halve the control group to avoid double‐counting.

Summary of findings table

We will create a ‘Summary of findings’ table using the following outcomes.

  • Participant‐reported musculoskeletal pain.

  • Participant‐reported discomfort or fatigue.

  • Productivity or work performance.

  • Workload changes.

We will use the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness and publication bias) to assess the quality of a body of evidence as it relates to the studies that contribute data to the meta‐analyses for the prespecified outcomes. We will use the methods and recommendations described in Section 8.5 and Chapter 12 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011) using GRADEpro software. We will justify all decisions to downgrade or upgrade the quality of studies using footnotes and we will make comments to aid readers’ understanding of the review where necessary.

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

When data allow, we plan to carry out the following subgroup analyses for each outcome.

  1. Type of intervention (if possible, we will compare studies that changed the frequency of work breaks with studies that changed the duration of work breaks and with studies that changed the type of work breaks).

  2. Age (if possible, we will compare studies conducted in participants aged 18 to 40 years with studies where all participants are aged 41 years and older).

  3. Sex (if possible, we will compare males with females).

  4. Type of work task (if possible, we will compare industrial or factory work, such as assembling, with computer work and social work, such as nursing and garbage collecting).

We will use the Chi² test to test for subgroup interactions in RevMan 2014.

Sensitivity analysis

We will perform a sensitivity analysis to investigate whether our findings could be affected by the high risk of bias of some of the included studies. We will consider studies to be at high risk of bias if random sequence allocation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, or carry‐over (applicable to cross‐over RCTs) are rated as unclear or high risk, and exclude these studies from the analysis.

Reaching conclusions

We will base our conclusions only on findings from the quantitative or narrative synthesis of included studies for this review. We will confine our recommendations for practice to those supported by the evidence, such as values and available resources. Our implications for research will suggest priorities for future research and outline the remaining uncertainties in the area.