Objectives High physical work demands are believed to be partly responsible for the high sickness absence among home care workers, but no studies have assessed their physical work demands using precise device-based measurements. Hence, the objective of this observational study was to assess physical work demands in home care, using wearable sensors. Methods From six home care units in a large municipality in Norway, 114 of 195 eligible home care workers filled in a questionnaire, a diary about work hours, and wore five accelerometers, and a heart rate sensor for up to six consecutive workdays. Results On average, the homecare workers spent 50% of the working hours sitting, 25.2% standing, 11.4% moving, 8.3% walking fast, 1.9% walking slow, 1.2% stair-climbing, 0.3% cycling, and 0.05% running. We found the following exposures to demanding postures: arm-elevation in an upright body position ≥30° was 36.7%, ≥60° was 4.1%, and ≥90°was 0.5%; forward trunk inclination in an upright body position ≥30° was 9.9%, ≥60° was 4%, and ≥90° was 1%; and for kneeling it was 0.8%. We found the average cardiovascular load (%heart rate reserve) during work to be 28%. There was considerable individual variation in these physical exposures at work. Conclusions This study presents precise information on various physical work demands of home care workers in Norway. Home care workers spent on average half the workday sitting and the remaining time in various occupational physical activities. Presently, few device-based exposure limits have been proposed for acceptable amounts of occupational physical exposures, but the level of arm-elevation, forward trunk inclination, and the considerable variation of physical workloads among home care workers, indicate that preventive measures should be taken.

Background: We investigated the feasibility of a 16-week supervised heavy resistance training program with weekly undulating periodization for individuals with persistent non-specific low-back pain (LBP). Methods: Twenty-five adults with persistent non-specific LBP participated in this mixed methods feasibility study. Participants trained a whole-body program consisting of squat, bench press, deadlift and pendlay row two times per week for 16 weeks. We assessed pain intensity, pain-related disability, pain self-efficacy and one-repetition maximum strength at baseline, 8 weeks and 16 weeks. Three focus group interviews were conducted at the end of the program. Linear mixed models were used to assess changes in outcomes, and the qualitative data was assessed using systematic text condensation. Results: We observed clinically meaningful reductions in pain intensity after 8 and 16 weeks of training. The mean difference on the numeric pain rating scale (0-10) in the last 2 weeks from baseline to 8 weeks was 2.6 (95% CI: 1.8-3.6) and from baseline to 16 weeks 3.4 (95% CI: 2.5-4.4). In addition, there were improvements in pain-related disability (3.9, 95% CI: 2.3-5.5), pain self-efficacy (7.7, 95% CI: 5.4-10.1) and muscle strength. In the focus group interviews, participants talked about challenges regarding technique, the importance of supervision and the advantages of periodizing the training. Perceived benefits were improved pain, daily functioning, energy level and sleep, and changes in views on physical activity. Conclusion: Periodized resistance training with weekly undulating periodization is a feasible training method for this group of individuals with persistent non-specific LBP. A randomized clinical trial should assess the efficacy of such an intervention. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov/ Identifier-NCT04284982, Registered on February 24th 2020.

No abstract

Background: We investigated the feasibility of a 16-week supervised heavy resistance training program with weekly undulating periodization for individuals with persistent non-specific low-back pain (LBP). Methods: Twenty-five adults with persistent non-specific LBP participated in this mixed methods feasibility study. Participants trained a whole-body program consisting of squat, bench press, deadlift and pendlay row two times per week for 16 weeks. We assessed pain intensity, pain-related disability, pain self-efficacy and one-repetition maximum strength at baseline, 8 weeks and 16 weeks. Three focus group interviews were conducted at the end of the program. Linear mixed models were used to assess changes in outcomes, and the qualitative data was assessed using systematic text condensation. Results: We observed clinically meaningful reductions in pain intensity after 8 and 16 weeks of training. The mean difference on the numeric pain rating scale (0-10) in the last two weeks from baseline to 8 weeks was 2.6 (95% CI: 1.8-3.6) and from baseline to 16 weeks 3.4 (95% CI: 2.5-4.4). In addition, there were improvements in pain-related disability (3.9, 95% CI: 2.3-5.5), pain self-efficacy (7.7, 95% CI: 5.4-10.1) and muscle strength. In the focus group interviews, participants talked about challenges regarding technique, the importance of supervision and the advantages of periodizing the training. Perceived benefits were improved pain, daily functioning, energy level and sleep, and changes in views on physical activity.Conclusion: Periodized resistance training with weekly undulating periodization is a feasible training method for this group of individuals with persistent non-specific LBP. A randomized clinical trial should assess the efficacy of such an intervention.