Bohr 2002.

Methods	RCT. The participants were randomly assigned to either the traditional education intervention group or the participatory education intervention group.
Participants	The sample of 102 participants was selected from a list of workers employed as agents at the centralised reservation facility for a large international transportation company who volunteered to participate in the project. These individuals used computers at least five hours per workday. All of these individuals performed similar work tasks at similar workstations. Participatory education group (n = 52) Traditional education group (n = 50)
Interventions	Traditional Education Intervention “Workers in the traditional education intervention group participated in a one‐hour education session that consisted of lecture and informational handouts about office ergonomics. The education for this group included information about basic muscle physiology, ideal neutral postures, basic task analysis, recommended office equipment location, recognition of problems related to incorrect equipment placement, and general wellness information related to exercise, nutrition, and smoking. A brief question and answer period was included at the end of the session.” Participatory Education Intervention “Workers in the participatory education intervention group were involved in active learning sessions incorporating discussions and problem solving exercises to aid in applying ergonomic concepts to the work environment. It should be noted that the content was similar to that provided to the traditional group but the method of presenting the information differed. The educational sessions for this group lasted approximately two hours. The first part of the educational session incorporated hands‐on demonstration of workstation evaluation and modification. Through case studies, the participants used a problem solving approach to recognize ergonomic problems and recommend solutions. The second portion of the session paired participants and returned them to their work areas to evaluate and modify the areas according to the information received during the first part of the session. The modifications were made under the supervision of the instructor for the course who provided assistance to ensure that the newly arranged work areas were consistent with the principles taught in the class.”
Outcomes	Primary outcomes (assessed through self‐reported survey at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months) Health Status and pain/discomfort (combined as upper body composite score) (12 questions) Psychosocial aspect of work (5 questions) Asked workers to identify problems with the arrangement of their computer work area (10 questions) Secondary outcome (assessed through observation check‐list by the researcher) Work area configuration (24 questions) Work postures (12 questions)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information on sequence generation; only information was: "The participants were randomly assigned...".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	There was no information on allocation concealment.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants were not blinded to the allocation of the intervention group.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Musculoskeletal disorders	High risk	The main outcome “pain/discomfort” was measured by self‐administered survey questionnaire.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	High as the attrition rate was 28% (Paticipatory Education group) and 25% (Traditional Education group), there was no mentioned of ITT, and the information presented in the report does not indicate any ITT.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No information suggestive of selective reporting, all outcomes were reported in the results section.
Other bias	High risk	The attrition rate for the both the groups were high; 24% (38/50) for the participatory education intervention and 25% (29/50) for the traditional education intervention. There was also risk of contamination of effect as the study was located in a single work site.