- 期刊
- OpenAccess
冠狀病毒流行期間健康促進介入方案對傳統產業員工身體活動量、減少肌肉骨骼傷害之成效
Efficacy of a Health Promotion Intervention Program for Physical Activities and Musculoskeletal Injury among Traditional Industry Workers during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic
摘要
冠狀病毒流行期間，因配合防疫政策及維持社交距離，職場員工減少了身體活動及健康促進活動，肌肉骨骼傷害間接受到影響，透過健康促進介入能否對於傳統產業員工帶來效益，值得關注。研究目的：探討冠狀病毒流行期間健康促進介入方案對傳統產業員工的身體質量指數、身體活動及北歐肌肉骨骼傷害問卷之成效。方法：本研究為準實驗性設計，針對北部某一傳統產業廠區員工進行介入計劃，依照廠區樓層進行分組，分為實驗組（n=55）及對照組（n=40）。實驗組接受8週健康促進方案（包含：職場環境改善、線上及實體健康促進課程等），對照組則是維持原有生活型態。針對身體活動量、北歐肌肉骨骼傷害問卷進行前後測評估，同質性檢驗以卡方檢定及獨立樣本t檢定，組間及組內差異以配對樣本t檢定及共變異數分析檢定之結果：與前測相比，實驗組8週介入後，身體質量指數（-0.24公斤／平方公尺）、費力身體活動（+27.54分／週）及中等費力身體活動（+34.82分／週）有顯著改善（p <.05）；控制前測後，實驗組在費力身體活動時間、中等費力身體活動時間及北歐肌肉骨骼傷害總分明顯地優於對照組（p <.05）。結論：健康促進介入不僅可以改善身體質量指數及身體活動量，同時減少肌肉骨骼傷害。未來，職業衛生護理師可以透過實體及線上健康促進介入策略，提升職場員工肌肉骨骼問題自我辨識及相關照護能力。
並列摘要
During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, workers in traditional industry had reduced physical activity and health promotion activities to comply with preventive measures and maintain social distancing. This is indirectly affected musculoskeletal injuries. The benefits of health promotion interventions for workers in traditional industries deserved attention. Objective: To examine the efficacy of a health promotion intervention program on body mass index, physical activity and Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire scale among traditional industry workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This study was a quasi-experimental design. Participants were recruited from a traditional industry in northern Taiwan and were divided into two arms based on their factory floor: the experimental arm (n=55) and the control arm (n=40). The experimental arm received eight weeks health promotion intervention including: online and in-person health promotion lectures, and environmental improvement. The control arm received routine care. Assessments of physical activity and the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire scale were conducted at baseline and after 8 weeks. Independent t test and chi-square test were used for homogeneity. Paired t test and analysis of covariance were used evaluate within and between-group differences. Results: Compared with baseline, the intervention arm at 8 weeks improved (p<.05) body mass index (-0.24 kg/m^2), vigorous-intensity physical activity (27.54 min/week), moderate vigorous-intensity physical activity (34.82 min/week). Additionally, compared to the control arm at 8 weeks, the intervention arm improved (p<.05) vigorous-intensity physical activity, moderate vigorous-intensity physical activity, and Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire scale. Conclusions: The health promotion intervention program was not only to improve body mass index and physical activity, also reduce musculoskeletal injuries. In the future, occupational nurses could use online and in-person health promote lectures to improve musculoskeletal problems for traditional industry workers.