Gatty 2004.
Methods | RCT. The participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups. | |
Participants | "All participants were female and met the inclusion criteria by being employed as full‐time clerical/office workers at a small western Pennsylvania college, and having no newly (within the last three months) diagnosed MSD". 15 workers participated in the study. | |
Interventions | The study compared individualised WIPPs vs no intervention Individualised WIPPs (group A) The WIPP were designed by the WIPP team (3 master of occupational therapy students and the principle investigator) was based on the work site analyses. Treatment sessions spanned weeks 1 through to 4. Each participant received 1 hour of treatment per week. During these 4 sessions the workers were actively engaged in education, workstation redesign, and task modification.
No intervention (control) (group B) This group received no intervention. All participants (intervention and control group) received the symptom evaluation measure (measured the reported frequency and intensity of symptoms), stress and energy scale (10‐cm VAS to measure perceived stress energy levels), and follow‐up survey (to identify changes in work status) |
|
Outcomes |
Primary outcomes
Secondary outcome Compliance survey – for group A (intervention) only ‐ about: how often they used the issued ergonomic equipment, how often they performed recommended stretches and whether or not they performed their job duties differently based on recommendations. Responses were elicited on a 4‐point Likert scale with choices of 1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = usually, 4 = always when I should. |
|
Notes | The study was reported in 2 papers (see Gatty 2004):
|
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | There was no mention of sequence generation. The only information given was: "This was a two‐phased randomized control pilot study with between and within subject comparisons … Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups, A (intervention) or B (control)". |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No information provided on allocation concealment. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | There was no information on blinding and since the intervention consists of education, workstation redesign, and task modification, there was high risk for bias. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Musculoskeletal disorders | High risk | The outcome was subjective reporting of symptoms frequency and intensity. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | In group A (intervention), "one non‐compliant worker at week zero remained non‐compliant at week five and was dropped from the study. One person was no longer employed by week 16 and membership decreased to six". In group B (control) "…Although there were originally eight participants, two different workers were non‐compliant with surveys, one at week zero and one at week five. By week 16, one person had left employment". Owing to the small number of participants, i.e. 16, the attrition of 3 participants was considered to induce a high risk of bias. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All the outcomes were reported. |
Other bias | High risk |
|