Francisco Brocal Fernández
This research comprises a Cochrane review that updates previous work by analysing 20 studies involving a total of 2,478 participants with work-related arm, neck or shoulder complaints, known as CANS (Complaints of Arm, Neck and/or Shoulder). Of these 20 studies, 13 involved office workers or computer users, and seven involved factory workers, sewing machine operators and slaughterhouse workers.
The authors conclude that the current evidence does not sufficiently support the use of ergonomic interventions as a stand-alone treatment to reduce pain, improve functionality or facilitate short-term recovery in people with CANS. Furthermore, the authors consider that ergonomic strategies could be useful in specific subgroups or as part of a broader rehabilitation or workplace intervention programme.
The authors therefore indicate that well-designed, high-quality clinical trials are required to determine the role of ergonomic interventions in managing WMSDs. They highlight significant limitations in their findings, noting the low quality and methodological shortcomings of the studies analysed.
Other significant limitations include: the small number of available studies (in the context of this research); the small number of participants in these studies; the variability of results across different studies; the fact that participants knew which intervention they received (the authors highlight significant risks of bias); and the predominance of office-based roles.
It is important to note that the conclusions and limitations of this review must be confined to the interventions studied. In any case, in addition to these limitations, it is necessary to consider other aspects that could influence the interpretation of this research.
Firstly, ergonomic interventions in workplaces of this nature are subject, in Spain, to the legal framework established by Law 31/1995 on the Prevention of Occupational Risks.
Secondly, it is important to distinguish between the objectives of an ergonomic intervention: those aimed at preventing the onset of discomfort or disorders, those aimed at preventing their worsening, and those aimed at treating existing symptoms and limitations.
Thirdly, ergonomic interventions are highly diverse and can affect the entire workstation throughout its life cycle. Thus, the scope of these interventions extends beyond musculoskeletal disorders and may encompass other dimensions of the interaction between the individual, the task and the environment (the work system). Fourthly, the organisational and psychosocial context can influence both the progression of musculoskeletal discomfort and the implementation and outcomes of the interventions.
Finally, as a general comment on the above, this research is relevant because it helps to define the current evidence regarding the potential benefits of ergonomic interventions for reducing pain, improving functionality or facilitating short-term recovery in people with CANS.
Furthermore, it is particularly important to emphasise that the findings of this research do not allow us to conclude that ergonomic interventions in the context of CANS are ineffective in reducing exposure or preventing harm.