There is irrefutable evidence of an association between mechanical neck pain (MNP) and dysfunction of the muscles of the cervical spine. A myriad of impairments have been demonstrated that include changes in the physical structure (cross-sectional area, fatty infiltration, fiber type), as well as changes in behavior (timing and activation level), of the cervical muscles. Such changes suggest an impaired capacity of the cervical muscles to generate, sustain, and maintain precision of the required levels of torque needed for optimal function. In the context of physical support, these changes potentially have deleterious consequences for the cervical region, which relies heavily on its muscles for mechanical stability. While interventions focused on the retraining of cervical muscle function have shown favorable responses in alleviating MNP, the development of best practice strategies for the assessment and management of cervical muscle dysfunction is still a work in progress. One obstacle in researching the efficacy of cervical muscle training is that, as yet, we do not possess the capacity to optimally measure and classify those patients most likely to respond to different methods of training that would enrich clinical practice. While gains in this area are emerging, the ability of a clinician to best identify the need and implement the most appropriate method of training cervical muscle function is still largely dependent on a comprehensive examination of the patient that considers all aspects of the patient's disorder and functional requirements. Level 5.

Background: This study uses the RE-AIM framework to provide a process evaluation of a workplace-based cluster randomised trial comparing an ergonomic plus exercise intervention to an ergonomic plus health promotion intervention; and to highlight variations across organisations; and consider the implications of the findings for intervention translation. Method: This study applied the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) methodology to examine the interventions’ implementation and to explore the extent to which differences between participating organisations contributed to the variations in findings. Qualitative and quantitative data collected from individual participants, research team observations and organisations were interrogated to report on the five RE-AIM domains. Results: Overall reach was 22.7% but varied across organisations (range 9 to 83%). Participants were generally representative of the recruitment pool though more females (n = 452 or 59%) were recruited than were in the pool (49%). Effectiveness measures (health-related productivity loss and neck pain) varied across all organisations, with no clear pattern emerging to indicate the source of the variation. Organisation-level adoption (66%) and staffing level adoption (91%) were high. The interventions were implemented with minimal protocol variations and high staffing consistency, but organisations varied in their provision of resources (e.g. training space, seniority of liaisons). Mean adherence of participants to the EET intervention was 56% during the intervention period, but varied from 41 to 71% across organisations. At 12 months, 15% of participants reported regular EET adherence. Overall mean (SD) adherence to EHP was 56% (29%) across organisations during the intervention period (range 28 to 77%), with 62% of participants reporting regular adherence at 12 months. No organisations continued the interventions after the follow-up period. Conclusion: Although the study protocol was implemented with high consistency and fidelity, variations in four domains (reach, effectiveness, adoption and implementation) arose between the 14 participating organisations. These variations may be the source of mixed effectiveness across organisations. Factors known to increase the success of workplace interventions, such as strong management support, a visible commitment to employee wellbeing and participant engagement in intervention design should be considered and adequately measured for future interventions. Trial registration: ACTRN12612001154897; 29 October 2012.

Objective: To identify risk factors for the development of interfering neck pain in office workers including an examination of the interaction effects between potential risk factors. Background: The 1-year incidence of neck pain in office workers is reported as the highest of all occupations. Identifying risk factors for the development of neck pain in office workers is therefore a priority to direct prevention strategies. Methods: Participants included 214 office workers without neck pain from two cultures. A battery of measures evaluating potential individual and workplace risk factors were administered at baseline, and the incidence of interfering neck pain assessed monthly for 12 months. Survival analysis was used to identify relationships between risk factors and the development of interfering neck pain. Results: One-year incidence was 1.93 (95% CI [1.41, 2.64]) per 100 person months. Factors increasing the risk of developing interfering neck pain were older age, female gender, increased sitting hours, higher job strain, and stress. A neutral thorax sitting posture, greater cervical range of motion and muscle endurance, and higher physical activity were associated with a decreased risk of neck pain. The effects of some risk factors on the development of neck pain were moderated by the workers’ coping resources. Conclusion: Multiple risk factors and interactions may explain the development of neck pain in office workers. Therefore, plans for preventing the development of interfering neck pain in office workers should consider multiple individual and work-related factors with some factors being potentially more modifiable than others.

BACKGROUND: Work-related psychosocial factors such as job strain are thought to contribute to elevated psychological stress in office workers. One factor that may impact the relationship between job strain and psychological distress is the individual’s coping resources. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to examine the interaction effect of coping resources on the relationship between job strain and psychological distress in office workers. METHODS: 220 office workers in Australia and Korea completed the Job Content Questionnaire (to evaluate job strain and social support at work), the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale, (DASS-21, a measure of psychological distress), and the Coping with Job Stress Scale to assess control and escape coping. Hierarchical regression analyses were executed to examine the interaction and moderating effect of coping resources. RESULTS: Job strain had a direct positive relationship with all three domains of psychological distress. The relationship between job strain and depression was positively moderated by escape coping, but negatively moderated by social support. Use of higher levels of escape coping predicted higher levels of depression and anxiety symptoms when higher levels of job strain were perceived. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest there may be a direct relationship between job strain and psychological distress in office workers. This relationship, however, may be moderated by the office workers coping resources (coping strategies and social support). It is suggested that the evaluation of coping might be a key consideration in the elements of the assessment of psychological distress in office workers.