Are work organization interventions effective in preventing or reducing work-related musculoskeletal disorders? A systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives We sought to determine whether interventions that target work organization or the psychosocial work environment are effective in preventing or reducing work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) compared to usual work. Methods We systematically reviewed the 2000-2015 English- and French-language scientific literature, including studies evaluating the effectiveness of an organizational or psychosocial work intervention on incidence, prevalence or intensity of work-related musculoskeletal pain or disorders in the neck, shoulders, upper limbs and/or back or of work absence due to such problems, among non-sick-listed workers. We excluded rehabilitation and individual-level behavioral interventions and studies with >50% attrition. We analyzed medium- and high-quality studies and synthesized the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development & Evaluation (GRADE) approach. An analysis of key workplace intervention elements supplemented the interpretation of results. Results We identified 884 articles; 28 met selection criteria, yielding 2 high-quality, 10 medium-quality and 16 low-quality studies. There was moderate evidence that supplementary breaks, compared to conventional break schedules, are effective in reducing symptom intensity in various body regions. Evidence was low-to-very-low quality for other interventions, primarily due to risk of bias related to study design, high attrition rates, co-interventions, and insensitive indicators. Most interventions lacked key intervention elements, such as work activity analysis and ergonomist guidance during implementation, but the relation of these elements to intervention effectiveness or ineffectiveness remains to be demonstrated. Conclusions Targeting work-rest cycles may reduce WMSD. Better quality studies are needed to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of other work organizational or psychosocial interventions to prevent or reduce WMSD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".