Effect of exercise given to factory workers with ergonomics training on pain and functionality: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise and manual therapy are used with pharmacological interventions to manage low back pain and prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders. However, the potential benefits of incorporating exercise and ergonomics training for factory workers experiencing low back pain have not been definitively established. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of ergonomics training with exercises on pain, functionality, sleep, and fatigue among factory employees experiencing low back pain. METHODS: This research was conducted as a randomized controlled trial involving workers with back pain employed in a plastic molding factory in Gebze, Kocaeli. Both groups received ergonomics training, but only the experimental group was given exercise training inclusive of stretching and core stabilization exercises. The workers in the experimental group were instructed to perform the exercises regularly for three days a week over a period of eight weeks. The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used for pre-and post-treatment assessment. RESULTS: The ODI, FSS, PSQI, and MPQ scores were significantly reduced in both groups. In the intergroup comparison, the exercise group showed a significantly greater decrease in all test scores compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: The exercise group showed a statistically significant decrease in ODI, FSS, MPQ, and PSQI scores compared to the control group. This study demonstrated that exercise is a more effective practice than ergonomic training for factory workers suffering from chronic low back pain.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".