Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 228–233 | Cite as

On the Effects of a Workplace Fitness Program upon Pain Perception: a Case Study Encompassing Office Workers in a Portuguese Context

  • Angela C. Macedo
  • Carla S. Trindade
  • Ana P. Brito
  • M. Socorro Dantas


Introduction Office workers share several behavioural patterns: they work seated without moving for long times, they use only a few specific muscles of their arms, wrists and hands, and they keep an overall poor body posture. These working patterns generate musculoskeletal disorders, and produce discomfort or pain. Implementation of a work fitness program is thus a low-cost strategy to reduce/prevent body pain derived from work. The aim of this study was to test the benefits of a workplace fitness program, specifically applied to an administrative department of a Portuguese enterprise. Recall that this type of primary prevention level of musculoskeletal disorders has been seldom applied in Portugal, so this research effort materialized an important contribution to overcome such a gap. Methods The participants in this study were office workers (n = 29 in the study group, and n = 21 in the control group)—who consistently had reported pain mostly on their back side (neck, posterior back, and dorsal and lumbar zones), wrists and posterior legs. The workplace fitness program consisted of three sessions per week during an 8-month period, with 15 min per session; emphasis was on stretching exercises for the body regions most affected by workers’ pain perception. Each participant was requested to point out the injured region, as well as the intensity of pain felt, by using a visual analogue scale. Statistical analyses of the perceived pain data from control and study groups resort to non-parametric hypothesis tests. Results There was a strong evidence that the workplace fitness program applied was effective in reducing workers’ pain perception for their posterior back, dorsal and lumbar zones, and for their right wrist (P < 0.05). Conclusions These results generated are rather promising, so they may efficiently serve as an example for other enterprises in that country—while raising awareness on the important issue of quality of life at the workplace.


Occupational health Ergonomics Workplace intervention Backache Injury prevention Quality of life 



This project received the financial support of Maiêutica–Cooperativa de Ensino Superior, CRL (Portugal). The major collaborations and involvement of Ms. Cristina Duarte from the enterprise where the study was developed, is hereby gratefully acknowledged.


  1. 1.
    Kelsey JL, Pastides H, Bisbee GE, White AA. Musculoskeletal disorders: their frequency of occurrence and their impact on the population of the United States. New York: Prodist; 1978. p. 31–6.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hashemi L, Webster BS, Clancy EA, Volinn E. Length of disability and costs of workers ‘compensation low back pain claims. J Occup Environ Med. 1997;39:937–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Turn your back on musculoskeletal disorders. European Week for Safety and Health at Work, 57 pp. [brochure on the internet]. Available from
  4. 4.
    European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Introduction to work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Fact Sheet. 2007;71.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Podniece Z, Taylor TN. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: prevention report. Luxembourg: Office for Publication of the European Communities, European Agency for Safety and Health at work; 2008.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mongini F, Ciccone G, Rota E, Ferrero L, Ugolini A, Evangelista A, Ceccarelli M, Galassi C. Effectiveness of an educational and physical programme in reducing headache, neck and shoulder pain: a workplace controlled trial. Cephalalgia. 2008;28:541–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bell JA, Burnett A. Exercise for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of low back pain in the workplace: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19:8–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sjögren T, Nissinen KJ, Järvenpää SK, Ojanen MT, Vanharanta H, Mälkiä EA. Effects of a workplace physical exercise intervention on the intensity of low back symptoms in office workers: a cluster randomized controlled cross-over design. J Back Musc Rehabil. 2006;19:13–24.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adersen JH, Haahr JP, Frost P. Risk factors for more severe regional musculoskeletal symptoms: a two-year prospective study of a general working population. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56:1355–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hayden JA, van Tulder MW, Malmivaara AV, Koes BW. Meta-analysis: exercise therapy for nonspecific low back pain. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:765–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schonstein E, Kenny D, Kreating J, Koes B, Herbert RD. Physical conditioning programs for workers with back and neck pain: a cochrane systematic review. Spine. 2003;28:E391–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunn K, Croft P. Epidemiology and natural history of low back pain. Europe Medicophysica. 2004;40:9–13.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Main C, Williams A. Musculoskeletal pain. Brit Med J. 2002;325:534–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Echternach J. Evaluations of pain in clinical environment. In: Ethternach JL, editor. Pain. Virginia: Churchill Livingston; 1987. p. 215–33.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huskisson E. Visual analogue scales. In: Melzack R, editor. Pain measurement and assessment. New York: Raven Press; 1983. p. 33–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robroek SJW, van Lenthe FJ, van Empelen P, Burdorf A. Determinants of participation in worksite health promotion programmes: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nut Phys Activ. 2009;6:26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soares RG, Assunção AA, Lima FPL. A baixa adesão ao programa de ginástica laboral: buscando elementos de trabalho para entender o problema/searching for elements at work that could explain the low attendance to labor gymnastic program. Rev Brazil Saúde Ocupac/Brazil J Occup Health. 2006;31:149–60.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Silveira MG, Silva RP, Reis VM, Novaes JS. Effect of the workplace exercises in the morphologic, functional, lifestyle and absenteeism variables in workers on the pharmaceutical industry of Montes Claros–MG. Fit Perform J. 2006;6:295–301.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Resende MC, Tedeschi CM, Bethônico FP, Martins TT. Efeitos de ginástica laboral em funcionários de teleatendimento/effects of work gymnastic on teleassistance employees. Acta Fisiat. 2007;14:25–31.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garganta R, Pereira H, Guerreiro F, Souza M, Prufer C, Menezes S. Prevalence of MSDs and effect of a prevention program based on exercise and ergonomics in workers of the furniture industry. In: SPOSHO—Portuguese Society of Occupational Safety and Hygiene, editor. International symposium on occupational safety and hygiene: Proceedings of the SHO 2010—International Symposium on Occupational Safety and Hygiene. Guimarães, Portugal: University of Minho; 2010. p. 266–7. Feb 11–12.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neto AP, Barbosa CG, Abdala DW, Junior AJ, Mendes MMS. Flexibility profile of workers participants in a labor gymnastic program of a metallurgical company from Guaxupé–MG. Fit Perform J. 2009;8:279–85.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mngoma N, Corbière M, Stevenson J. Pain profiles and psychosocial distress symptoms in workers with low back pain. Physiother Can. 2008;60:239–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wattles MG, Harris C. The relationship between fitness levels and employee’s perceived productivity, job satisfaction, and absenteeism. J Exerc Physiol. 2003;6:24–32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela C. Macedo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Carla S. Trindade
    • 2
  • Ana P. Brito
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Socorro Dantas
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Research Center for Sports Science, Health and Human DevelopmentAvioso S. PedroPortugal
  2. 2.Instituto Superior da MaiaAv. Carlos Oliveira CamposAvioso S. PedroPortugal
  3. 3.Universidade Federal de AlagoasMaceíoBrazil

Personalised recommendations