Associations of occupational standing with musculoskeletal symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Given the high exposure to occupational standing in specific occupations, and recent initiatives to encourage intermittent standing among white-collar workers, a better understanding of the potential health consequences of occupational standing is required. We aimed to review and quantify the epidemiological evidence on associations of occupational standing with musculoskeletal symptoms. DESIGN: A systematic review was performed. Data from included articles were extracted and described, and meta-analyses conducted when data were sufficiently homogeneous. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were systematically searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed articles on occupational standing and musculoskeletal symptoms from epidemiological studies were identified. RESULTS: Of the 11 750 articles screened, 50 articles reporting 49 studies were included (45 cross-sectional and 5 longitudinal; n=88 158 participants) describing the associations of occupational standing with musculoskeletal symptoms, including low-back (39 articles), lower extremity (14 articles) and upper extremity (18 articles) symptoms. In the meta-analysis, 'substantial' (>4 hours/workday) occupational standing was associated with the occurrence of low-back symptoms (pooled OR (95% CI) 1.31 (1.10 to 1.56)). Evidence on lower and upper extremity symptoms was too heterogeneous for meta-analyses. The majority of included studies reported statistically significant detrimental associations of occupational standing with lower extremity, but not with upper extremity symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that substantial occupational standing is associated with the occurrence of low-back and (inconclusively) lower extremity symptoms, but there may not be such an association with upper extremity symptoms. However, these conclusions are tentative as only limited evidence was found from high-quality, longitudinal studies with fully adjusted models using objective measures of standing.

Associations of prolonged standing with musculoskeletal symptoms-A systematic review of laboratory studies.

While prolonged standing has shown to be detrimentally associated with musculoskeletal symptoms, exposure limits and underlying mechanisms are not well understood. We systematically reviewed evidence from laboratory studies on musculoskeletal symptom development during prolonged (≥20min) uninterrupted standing, quantified acute dose-response associations and described underlying mechanisms. Peer-reviewed articles were systematically searched for. Data from included articles were tabulated, and dose-response associations were statistically pooled. A linear interpolation of pooled dose-response associations was performed to estimate the duration of prolonged standing associated with musculoskeletal symptoms with a clinically relevant intensity of ≥9 (out of 100). We included 26 articles (from 25 studies with 591 participants), of which the majority examined associations of prolonged standing with low back and lower extremity symptoms. Evidence on other (e.g., upper limb) symptoms was limited and inconsistent. Pooled dose-response associations showed that clinically relevant levels of low back symptoms were reached after 71min of prolonged standing, with this shortened to 42min in those considered pain developers. Regarding standing-related low back symptoms, consistent evidence was found for postural mechanisms (i.e., trunk flexion and lumbar curvature), but not for mechanisms of muscle fatigue and/or variation in movement. Blood pooling was the most consistently reported mechanism for standing-related lower extremity symptoms. Evidence suggests a detrimental association of prolonged standing with low back and lower extremity symptoms. To avoid musculoskeletal symptoms (without having a-priori knowledge on whether someone will develop symptoms or not), dose-response evidence from this study suggests a recommendation to refrain from standing for prolonged periods >40min. Interventions should also focus on underlying pain mechanisms.

Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Breast and Colon Cancer Survivors Relative to Adults Without Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in accelerometer-assessed moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA), light-intensity physical activity, and sedentary time between cancer survivors and adults without cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Accelerometer data collected from 241 breast cancer survivors (ACCEL-Breast study, 2013) and 171 colon cancer survivors (ACCEL-Colon study, 2012-2013) were pooled with data collected from adults without cancer (Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle accelerometer substudy, 2011-2012). Linear regression was used to estimate differences in physical activity and sedentary behavior levels between cancer survivors and adults without cancer, adjusted for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: The mean MVPA was significantly higher among breast cancer survivors than among females who had not had cancer (29 vs 22 min/d; P<.001). Colon cancer survivors had significantly lower levels of light activity than did adults without cancer (311 vs 338 min/d; P<.001), more sedentary time (532 vs 507 min/d; P=.003), and more prolonged sedentary time (210 vs 184 min/d; P=.002). CONCLUSION: Contrary to findings from previous research (based on self-reported physical activity), cancer survivors engaged in more (breast) or equivalent (colon) MVPA compared with adults without cancer. Differences between colon cancer survivors and adults without cancer for light activity and sedentary behavior highlight the importance of considering the full activity spectrum in the context of cancer control.

Understanding Overuse of Computed Tomography for Minor Head Injury in the Emergency Department: A Triangulated Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Overuse of computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury continues despite developed and rigorously validated clinical decision rules like the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR). Adherence to this sensitive and specific rule could decrease the number of CT scans performed in minor head injury by 35%. But in practice, the CCHR has failed to reduce testing, despite its accurate performance. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to identify nonclinical, human factors that promote or inhibit the appropriate use of CT in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with minor head injury. METHODS: This was a qualitative study in three phases, each with interview guides developed by a multidisciplinary team. Subjects were recruited from patients treated and released with minor head injuries and providers in an urban academic ED and a satellite community ED. Focus groups of patients (four groups, 22 subjects total) and providers (three groups, 22 subjects total) were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. The findings from the focus groups were triangulated with a cognitive task analysis, including direct observation in the ED (>150 hours), and individual semistructured interviews using the critical decision method with four senior physician subject matter experts. These experts are recognized by their peers for their skill in safely minimizing testing while maintaining patient safety and engagement. Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded and notes were taken by two independent note takers. Notes were entered into ATLAS.ti and analyzed using the constant comparative method of grounded theory, an iterative coding process to determine themes. Data were double-coded and examined for discrepancies to establish consensus. RESULTS: Five core domains emerged from the analysis: establishing trust, anxiety (patient and provider), constraints related to ED practice, the influence of others, and patient expectations. Key themes within these domains included patient engagement, provider confidence and experience, ability to identify and manage patient anxiety, time constraints, concussion knowledge gap, influence of health care providers, and patient expectations to get a CT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high-quality evidence informing use of CT in minor head injury, multiple factors influence the decision to obtain CT in practice. Identifying and disseminating approaches and designing systems that help clinicians establish trust and manage uncertainty within the ED context could optimize CT use in minor head injury.