ActivSeating™ Outcome Measures For The Injured Worker
Dramatic results as our methods relieve suffering.
Two studies were done to clarify the client response to the ActivSeating™ process, and both showed remarkable improvements in symptoms and productivity for the injured office worker. These studies were done in several Fortune 500 company office environments. All of these people had been given an ergonomics training and intervention program, but continued to have worsening symptoms. Most of these people also had continuing medical treatment, and may likely have become Workers’ Compensation claims.
The first study was a single-survey design using a questionnaire sent to 1,000 people seen only once for an ActivSeating consultation over a five-year period ending 2015. The subjects were asked to rank their present level of discomfort since the intervention (5-point Likert scale, ‘very low’ to ‘very high’), and to indicate if those changes made any difference for their productivity (7-point Likert scale). Most of the 187 respondents (92%) reported their symptoms were either “much better,” or “somewhat better,” and most of the subjects (94%) reported they were more productive. None reported they were even slightly worse.
The second study was a much more rigorous repeated survey design, taking advantage of a change in the ergonomic report template that asked the client to name the symptomatic body part at the time of the assessment, and to give a subjective estimate for the frequency and severity of the symptom. The frequency of discomfort was initially recorded as a 5-point Likert scale (rarely, sometimes, often, frequently, all the time) and the severity was also recorded on a similar scale: (very low, low, moderate, high, very high). 233 people were then given the same questions six to eighteen months after their initial assessment, and a total of 134 people responded (57%), 83 female and 51 male. 80 people reported back pain as the primary complaint, and 54 people reported primarily upper quarter (neck, shoulder, arm and hand) symptoms. In every case, the follow-up frequency and severity scores were combined and compared with the initial score using a paired samples test.
The average combined frequency and severity for the Low Back pain group (n = 80) prior to the assessment was 13.31, (standard deviation 8.36) or “moderate-high severity,” at the frequency of “regularly-often.” These clients reported their average current pain and severity levels after the consultation at 1.96, (standard deviation 1.82) or “very low-low,” and “rarely-sometimes.” The difference between the initial and follow-up surveys represented a 85.3% reduction in low back pain severity and frequency (p=0.0001).
The results for the Upper Quarter symptoms group (n = 54) showed a similar result: at the initial assessment the discomfort severity and frequency was reported at 11.13, (standard deviation 5.41) or “moderate to high severity,” at the frequency of “regularly-often.” These clients reported their average current pain and severity levels in the follow-up survey at 2.26, (standard deviation 2.696) or “very low to low,” and “rarely to sometimes.” The difference between the initial and follow-up surveys represents an 80% reduction in discomfort severity and frequency (p=0.0001) for the group that reported upper quarter disorders.
The two groups combined (n = 134) reported their average discomfort severity and frequency at 12.43, (standard deviation 5.46) or “moderate to high severity,” at the frequency of “regularly-often.” These clients reported their average current pain and severity levels in the follow-up survey at 2.08, (standard deviation 2.34) or “very low to low,” and “rarely to sometimes.” The difference between the initial and follow-up surveys represents an 83% reduction in discomfort severity and frequency (p=0.0001) for the total combination of groups that reported low back and upper quarter disorders.
None were worse.