Quantifying user behaviors at sit-stand desks is critical to understanding the efficacy of these workstations to reduce exposures to prolonged sitting or standing. A custom after-market desk-mounted sensor predicting sit-stand desk use by measuring desk floor heights, desk user distances, and the temperature in front of the desk was tested. The authors performed sensor component testing, a survey of desk height ranges, and a logistic model to estimate gross posture and user presence with a 95.6% accuracy rate. This approach can aid researchers and ergonomists in understanding sit-stand desk use in the field, with the end goal of reducing sedentary work activities.

Viscoelastic creep generated in the lumbar spine following sustained spine flexion may affect the relationship between tissue damage and perceived pain. Two processes supporting this altered relationship include altered neural feedback and inflammatory processes. Our purpose was to determine how low back mechanical pain sensitivity changes following seated lumbar spine flexion using pressure algometry in a repeated-measures, cross-sectional laboratory design. Thirty-eight participants underwent a 10-minute sustained seated maximal flexion exposure with a 40-minute standing recovery period. Pressure algometry assessed pressure pain thresholds and the perceived intensity and unpleasantness of fixed pressures. Accelerometers measured spine flexion angles, and electromyography measured muscular activity during flexion. The flexion exposure produced 4.4° (2.7°) of creep that persisted throughout the entire recovery period. The perception of low back stimulus unpleasantness was elevated immediately following the exposure, 20 minutes before a delayed increase in lumbar erector spinae muscle activity. Women reported the fixed pressures to be more intense than men. Sustained flexion had immediate consequences to the quality of mechanical stimulus perceived but did not alter pressure pain thresholds. Neural feedback and inflammation seemed unlikely mechanisms for this given the time and direction of pain sensitivity changes, leaving a postulated cortical influence.

Background Many primary care patients receive both medical and chiropractic care; however, interprofessional relations between physicians and chiropractors are often suboptimal which may adversely affect care of shared patients. We surveyed Canadian family physicians in 2010 to explore their attitudes towards chiropractic and re-administered the same survey a decade later to explore for changes in attitudes. Methods A 50-item survey administered to a random sample of Canadian family physicians in 2010, and again in 2019, that inquired about demographic variables, knowledge and use of chiropractic. Imbedded in our survey was a 20-item chiropractic attitude questionnaire (CAQ); scores could range from 0 to 80 with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes toward chiropractic. We constructed a multivariable regression model to explore factors associated with CAQ scores. Results Among eligible physicians, 251 of 685 in 2010 (37% response rate) and 162 of 2429 in 2019 (7% response rate) provided a completed survey. Approximately half of respondents (48%) endorsed a positive impression of chiropractic, 27% were uncertain, and 25% held negative views. Most respondents (72%) referred at least some patients for chiropractic care, mainly due to patient request or lack of response to medical care. Most physicians believed that chiropractors provide effective therapy for some musculoskeletal complaints (84%) and disagreed that chiropractic care was beneficial for non-musculoskeletal conditions (77%). The majority agreed that chiropractic care was a useful supplement to conventional care (65%) but most respondents (59%) also indicated that practice diversity among chiropractors presented a barrier to interprofessional collaboration. In our adjusted regression model, attitudes towards chiropractic showed trivial improvement from 2010 to 2019 (0.31 points on the 80-point CAQ; 95%CI 0.001 to 0.62). More negative attitudes were associated with older age (− 1.55 points for each 10-year increment from age 28; 95%CI − 2.67 to − 0.44), belief that adverse events are common with chiropractic care (− 1.41 points; 95% CI − 2.59 to − 0.23) and reported use of the research literature (− 6.04 points; 95% CI − 8.47 to − 3.61) or medical school (− 5.03 points; 95% CI − 7.89 to − 2.18) as sources of knowledge on chiropractic. More positive attitudes were associated with endorsing a relationship with a specific chiropractor (5.24 points; 95% CI 2.85 to 7.64), family and friends (4.06 points; 95% CI 1.53 to 6.60), or personal treatment experience (4.63 points; 95% CI 2.14 to 7.11) as sources of information regarding chiropractic. Conclusions Although generally positive, Canadian family physicians’ attitudes towards chiropractic are diverse, and most physicians felt that practice diversity among chiropractors was a barrier to interprofessional collaboration.

Repetitive trunk flexion can damage spinal tissues, however its association with low back pain in the workplace may be confounded by factors related to pain sensitivity. Muscle fatigue, exercise-induced hypoalgesia, and creep-induced neuromuscular changes following repetitive trunk flexion may all affect this assumed exposure pain relationship. This study?s purpose was to determine how mechanical pain sensitivity in the low back is affected by a repetitive trunk flexion exposure and identify factors associated with changes in low back pain sensitivity. Pressure pain thresholds, perceptions of sub-threshold stimuli, and muscle fatigue in the trunk and tibia, as well as lumbar spine creep were tracked in 37 young healthy adults before and up to 40 min after a 10 min repetitive trunk flexion exposure. Pressure pain thresholds (p = 0.033), but not perceptions of sub-threshold stimuli (p > 0.102) were associated with approximately a 12.5% reduction in pain sensitivity 10 min after completing the exposure, while creep and local muscle fatigue effects were only observed immediately following the exposure. Creep and fatigue interactions and the corresponding tibial measure co-varied with individual low back pressure pain thresholds. The net hypoalgesic effects of repetitive trunk flexion have the potential to partially mask possibly injurious loads, which could contribute to the severity or incidence of lower back injuries related to these exposures.

The lumbar extensor spinae (LES) has an oblique orientation with respect to the compressive axis of the lumbar spine, allowing it to counteract anterior shear forces. This mechanical advantage is lost as spine flexion angle increases. The LES orientation can also alter over time as obliquity decreases with age and is associated with decreased strength and low back pain. However, it is unknown if LES orientation is impacted by recent exposures causing adaptations over shorter timescales. Hence, the effects of a 10-minute sustained spine flexion exposure on LES orientation, thickness, and activity were investigated. Three different submaximally flexed spine postures were observed before and after the exposure. At baseline, orientation (P < .001) and thickness (P = .004) decreased with increasingly flexed postures. After the exposure, obliquity further decreased at low (pairwise comparison P < .001) and moderately (pairwise comparison P = .008) flexed postures. Low back creep occurred, but LES thickness did not change, indicating that decreases in orientation were not solely due to changes in muscle length at a given posture. Activation did not change to counteract decreases in obliquity. These changes encompass a reduced ability to offset anterior shear forces, thus increasing the potential risk of anterior shear-related injury or pain after low back creep-generating exposures.

Three-dimensional joint angles are most often quantified using Euler Angles. These measures are often easier to interpret if they are reported relative to a reference posture. However, since Euler Angles are not vectors, directly subtracting their values is difficult to justify mathematically. We compared four methods for subtracting a reference posture: the Subtraction Method (SM), directly subtracting the Euler Angles; two variants on the Relative Segment Method (RSM), one aligned to global (gRSM) and one aligned to the distal segment (dRSM), which considers the relative rotation of each segment to the reference posture; and the Relative Joint Method (RJM), which considers the relative rotation of the joint coordinate systems compared to that of the reference posture. One exemplar male subject (height: 175 cm; body mass: 90 kg; age: 27) performed three trials where they extended, laterally bent to the right, and extended while returning to a neutral posture between these movements. Two reference postures were compared: a standing neutral posture, and 90 degrees of flexion. All four methods showed strong agreement when the reference posture was a neutral one (lowest R-2 = 0.971). However, when the reference posture was 90 degrees of flexion, both the RJM and gRSM swapped their lateral bend and axial twist measures. Additionally, when the reference posture was oriented 90 degrees from the global coordinate system, the gRSM swapped flexion and lateral bending. Therefore, the RJM, dRSM, and even the SM, are more robust than the gRSM. Either the RJM or dRSM are recommended as it is a compromise between mathematical validity and interpretability, however, the RJM seems to provide more readily interpretable angular velocities. The SM is only a viable approach under very strict conditions and should be avoided. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Objectives: This study compares people with recurrent low back pain (rLBP) and people with pre-clinical low back pain (standing-induced low back pain developers; PDs) to each other and back-healthy controls (non-pain developers; NPDs). Movement variability and muscular co-activity related to coordination are important for both rLBP and PDs, and these two groups also have altered static spine extension. Methods: Eleven participants with recurrent low back pain, and twenty-one asymptomatic participants, categorized as PDs (11) and NPDs (10) through an established standing protocol, volunteered for this study. Three phases of standing extension motion (lean, hold, and return to neutral) were analyzed. Root mean square angular jerk was calculated from trunk and pelvis kinematics, co-activation of the trunk and hip musculature were assessed in four-muscle sets. Results: Root-mean-square jerk was greater when returning to neutral than when leaning back during standing extension in all three groups. People with rLBP had reduced co-activity in their trunk extensors, people classified as PD had more co-activity in their hip extensors compared with the other groups, and anterior trunk co-activity was phase-dependent, and similar between groups. Discussion: Movement control alterations with low back pain may start as an over-protective co-activation strategy in those with standing-induced LBP and progress to an under-protective strategy in those with recurrent low back pain. Level of Evidence: 3.

People developing transient low back pain during standing have altered control of their spine and hips during standing tasks, but the transfer of these responses to other tasks has not been assessed. This study used video fluoroscopy to assess lumbar spine intervertebral kinematics of people who do and do not develop standing-induced low back pain during a seated chair-tilting task. A total of 9 females and 8 males were categorized as pain developers (5 females and 3 males) or nonpain developers (4 females and 5 males) using a 2-hour standing exposure; pain developers reported transient low back pain and nonpain developers did not. Participants were imaged with sagittal plane fluoroscopy at 25 Hz while cyclically tilting their pelvises anteriorly and posteriorly on an unstable chair. Intervertebral angles, relative contributions, and anterior-posterior translations were measured for the L3/L4, L4/L5, and L5/S1 joints and compared between sexes, pain groups, joints, and tilting directions. Female pain developers experienced more extension in their L5/S1 joints in both tilting directions compared with female nonpain developers, a finding not present in males. The specificity in intervertebral kinematics to sex-pain group combinations suggests that these subgroups of pain developers and nonpain developers may implement different control strategies.

the authors) in deep rotatory and other intersegmental muscles in a living human and that may alter joint loads in ways that are relevant to the initiation of low back pain. With respect to ATDs (of which there are many), there are no data demonstrating the biofidelity of any ATD’s lumbar spine kinematics or kinetics for this type of crash. Given all of the shortcomings enumerated above, more research is needed before muscles can be ignored and before cadaver and ATD test data can be applied in isolation to estimate the lumbar joint loads in low-speed rear-end impacts. The authors carefully focus their article on low back pain and avoid discussing specific low back injuries such as intervertebral disc injuries. As mentioned earlier, low back pain is reported by many individuals with acute and chronic injuries related to a rear-end impact, whereas intervertebral disc injuries appear to be considerably rarer. Nevertheless, most properly seated people are unlikely to suffer from chronic low back pain—let alone disc injuries—following a lowspeed rear-end collision with a speed change of 4 km/h and therefore one must be cautious when generalizing the average data from 11 volunteers who experienced a predictable and controlled laboratory collision to all individuals exposed to the wide range of possible real-world collisions. Average responses to experimental conditions that do not, on average, generate the injury being studied are a narrow basis for making broad inferences about the relevance (or not) of possible factors contributing to that injury’s causation. Disclosure

This article responds to:Re: Fewster et al. (2019) Characterizing trunk muscle activations during simulated low-speed rear impact collisions, Traffic Injury Prevention, doi: 10.1080/15389588.2019.1579317

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the activation profiles of muscles surrounding the lumbar spine during unanticipated and braced simulated rear-end collisions.Methods: Twenty-two low-speed sled tests were performed on 11 human volunteers (V = 4km/h). Each volunteer was exposed to one unanticipated impact and one braced impact. Accelerometers were mounted on the test sled and participants' low back. Six bilateral channels of surface electromyography (EMG) were collected from the trunk during impact trials. Peak lumbar accelerations, peak muscle activation delay, muscle onset time, and peak EMG magnitudes, normalized to maximum voluntary contractions (MVCs), were examined across test conditions.Results: Though not statistically significant, bracing for impact tended to reduce peak lumbar acceleration in the initial rearward impact phase of the occupant's motion by approximately 15%. The only trunk muscles with peak activations exceeding 10% MVC during the unanticipated impact were the thoracic erector spinae. Time of peak muscle activation was slightly longer for the unanticipated condition (unanticipated = 296ms; braced = 241ms).Conclusions: Results from this investigation demonstrate that during an unanticipated low-speed rear-end collision, the peak activation of muscles in the lumbar spine are low in magnitude. As such, muscle activation likely has minimal contribution to the internal joint loads that are experienced in the lumbar intervertebral joints during low-speed rear impact collisions. These findings justify the use of simplified joint models in estimating the joint loads in the lumbar spine during low-speed rear impact collisions and support the application of cadaveric and anthropomorphic test device (ATD) testing in understanding the resultant joint loads in the lumbar spine associated with rear-end collisions.

the authors) in deep rotatory and other intersegmental muscles in a living human and that may alter joint loads in ways that are relevant to the initiation of low back pain. With respect to ATDs (of which there are many), there are no data demonstrating the biofidelity of any ATD’s lumbar spine kinematics or kinetics for this type of crash. Given all of the shortcomings enumerated above, more research is needed before muscles can be ignored and before cadaver and ATD test data can be applied in isolation to estimate the lumbar joint loads in low-speed rear-end impacts. The authors carefully focus their article on low back pain and avoid discussing specific low back injuries such as intervertebral disc injuries. As mentioned earlier, low back pain is reported by many individuals with acute and chronic injuries related to a rear-end impact, whereas intervertebral disc injuries appear to be considerably rarer. Nevertheless, most properly seated people are unlikely to suffer from chronic low back pain—let alone disc injuries—following a lowspeed rear-end collision with a speed change of 4 km/h and therefore one must be cautious when generalizing the average data from 11 volunteers who experienced a predictable and controlled laboratory collision to all individuals exposed to the wide range of possible real-world collisions. Average responses to experimental conditions that do not, on average, generate the injury being studied are a narrow basis for making broad inferences about the relevance (or not) of possible factors contributing to that injury’s causation. Disclosure

An adaptable method of computing muscle co-activity is presented. Instantaneous muscle activities from multiple muscles are reduced into commonality and activity level dimensions. Both dimensions are weighted independently and combined into a co-activation measure, Φ. Myoelectric data from relaxed and braced simulated rear vehicle impacts were used to compare Φ to two existing co-activity measures in muscle pair and multi-muscle cases, Φ showed greater sensitivity in the muscle pair case and could better discriminate the relaxed and braced conditions in the multi-muscle case than previous measures. The flexibility of Φ allowed tailoring to reflect the current purpose.

This study investigated how task demands affect postural behaviour during standing. Twenty-four participants completed three different 12-min tasks: (1) a cognitive task that involved answering questions based on a written passage; (2) a light manual assembly task; and (3) standing quietly with no secondary task. The manual task was associated with the lowest amount of postural movement and a more static pose than the other two conditions. Specifically, postural variability of the lumbar (F = 5.8; p = 0.01) and thoracic (F = 4.2; p = 0.03) spine, and fidgets and shifts of the spine (F = 3.2; p = 0.048), were lowest in the manual task. Additionally, individuals perceiving tasks to be more demanding-regardless of task type-tended to move less (p = 0.049) than those perceiving lower demands. These findings provide important initial evidence that the type and perceived demands of standing work tasks can affect postural movement.

A prolonged standing exposure can identify asymptomatic adults who have a higher risk of developing clinical low back pain later in life. Hip abductor cocontraction differences can predict low back pain development during standing exposures. This study's purpose was to determine if hip abductor strength, fatigability, and recovery during prolonged standing were related to standing-induced low back pain. Forty young, asymptomatic adults (50% female) performed two 2-hour standing sessions; a fatiguing hip abductor exercise was performed prior to 1 of the 2 standing sessions. Hip abductor strength and surface electromyography of gluteus medius and tensor fascia latae were measured. Self-reported low back pain differentiated low back pain developing (PD) and nonpain developing (NPD) groups. The PD group hip abductors fatigued before the NPD group, with similar perceived effort and force losses. Mean power frequency decreases with fatigue were similar between pain groups for all muscles measured after the fatiguing exercise. Unlike NPDs, PDs did not recover force losses after 120 minutes of standing. Hip abductor fatigability may be related to the development of low back pain in this population.

Background: Lumbar lordosis measures are poorly related to clinical low back pain, however using a controlled exposure such as prolonged standing to identify pain groups may clarify this relationship. The purpose of this study was to determine the distribution of lumbar intervertebral angles in asymptomatic persons who do (pain developers) and do not (non-pain developers) develop low back pain during standing. Methods: Sagittal plane lumbar spine radiographs of eight pain developers and eight non-pain developers were taken in three poses: upright standing, full extension and full flexion. Measures of vertebral end plate orientations from L1 to S1 were taken in each pose to compute: intervertebral angles, contribution of each level to the total curve, total lordosis, ranges of motion, relative pose positioning within the range of motion, vertebral shape, and lumbar spine recurve. Measures were compared between pain groups and lumbar levels. Findings: Pain group differences in intervertebral angles and level contributions were greatest in the full extension pose, with pain developers having greater contributions from higher lumbar levels and fewer contributions from lower levels than non-pain developers. Pain group differences in intervertebral angle distributions were less pronounced in upright standing and non-existent in full flexion. No other measures differentiated pain groups. Interpretations: Although participants had similar gross-lumbar spine curvature characteristics, non-pain developers have more curvature at lower levels in upright standing and full extension. These differences in regional vertebral kinematics may partially be responsible for standing-induced low back pain.

Persons who develop low back pain from prolonged standing exhibit increased muscle cocontraction, decreased movement and increased spine extension. However, it is unclear how these factors relate to pain development. The purpose of this study was to use hip abductor fatigue to manipulate muscle activity patterns and determine its effects on standing behaviours and pain development. Forty participants stood for two hours twice, once following a hip abductor fatigue exercise (fatigue), and once without exercise beforehand (control). Trunk and gluteal muscle activity were measured to determine cocontraction. Lumbo-pelvic angles and force plates were used to assess posture and movement strategies. Visual analog scales differentiated pain (PDs) and non-pain developers (NPDs). PDs reported less low back pain during the fatigue session, with females having earlier reductions of similar scale than males. The fatigue session reduced gluteal and trunk cocontraction and increased centre of pressure movement; male and female PDs had opposing spine posture compensations. Muscle fatigue prior to standing reduced cocontraction, increased movement during standing and reduced the low back pain developed by PDs; the timing of pain reductions depended on spine postures adopted during standing.

OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONS Occupational sitting has been associated with an increased risk for developing low back pain. The present investigation examined the effects of asymmetrical sitting surfaces induced by a wallet on acute changes in spine/pelvis posture, interface pressure, and discomfort. Compared to level sitting, sitting on a wallet resulted in greater sagittal and lateral spine flexion, a smaller total contact area with the seat pan, and greater gluteal discomfort. At wallet thicknesses of 22 mm and thicker, seat pan contact pressure area decreased and thoracic spine and pelvic angles deviated laterally compared to the no-wallet condition. At a 32-mm wallet thickness, gluteal discomfort increased. These results indicate that sitting for brief periods (15 minutes) on an uneven seating surface greater than 32 mm in thickness causes postural deviations from neutral spine positions and increases gluteal discomfort. This study supports the removal of rear pocket items, especially larger ones, during sitting.TECHNICAL ABSTRACT Background: Occupations in mobile or office settings can involve prolonged seated exposures, increasing the likelihood of low back pain development. The seat-occupant interface can be impeded by wallets or other objects (cell phones, paper documents, etc.) placed in the rear pocket, potentially increasing the risk of developing low back pain directly (nerve compression) or indirectly (altered kinematics). However, there are no published studies that have examined the effect of an uneven seating surface. Purpose: This study aimed to quantify the outcomes of a non-level sitting surface on trunk kinematics, seat pan pressure distribution, and discomfort. Gender differences in responses were also examined. Methods: Twelve males and 12 females sat for 15 minutes each on 4 wallet thicknesses (0, 12, 22, and 32 mm). Sagittal and frontal plane angles of the thoracic, lumbar spine and the pelvis were measured. Seat pressure distribution (total pressure area) and discomfort using a 100-mm visual analogue scale were also collected for each thickness. Results: In the 22- and 32-mm conditions, there was greater pelvic posterior rotation, pelvic left lateral bending, thoracic flexion, and thoracic right lateral bending compared to the 0-mm condition. Males and females showed differences in the magnitude of lateral bend angles at all spine levels; however, both genders demonstrated the same directions of postural compensation. Total pressure area decreased and gluteal discomfort increased with thicker wallets, reaching significance in the 22- and 32-mm conditions, respectively. Conclusions: Sitting on wallets greater than 32 mm in thickness increased gluteal discomfort reporting after short duration exposures. Asymmetrical sitting promotes non-neutral spine postures and reduces seat pan contact area. Asymmetrical sitting is therefore not recommended, even for short duration exposures.