Systematic ReviewClinical Guidelines & Best PracticesTreatment: Exercise & MovementSystematic Reviews & Meta-analysesClinical RelevanceDOI
4 min read
Jump to:

Patient-friendly summary

If you read nothing else

For workers in physically demanding jobs with muscle or joint pain, doing strength training at work has the strongest evidence for reducing that pain.

Bottom line

Workplace strength training is supported by strong evidence for reducing musculoskeletal disorders in physically demanding jobs, while participatory ergonomics, multifaceted programs, and stress management showed no clear benefit (though heterogeneity warrants caution).

Moderate evidence

Published

2020
6 years ago
Recent

Evidence hierarchy

Meta-analysis
Systematic Review ◀ this study
RCT
Cohort
Case-Control
Case Report
Expert Opinion

Study participants

54 studies (36 RCTs, 18 non-RCTs) evaluating 69 unique workplace interventionsNot reportedNot reported

Adult workers with physically demanding jobs (construction, manufacturing, health care, etc.) who had musculoskeletal disorders, across 19 countries (mostly European/Scandinavian)

Full research — for clinicians and curious readers

Study Summary

This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of workplace interventions for rehabilitating musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among employees with physically demanding work, synthesizing evidence from 54 high- and medium-quality studies (36 RCTs and 18 non-RCTs) published 1998-2018. Using the Institute for Work & Health best-evidence-synthesis approach, the authors found moderate evidence that workplace physical exercise reduces MSD, and strong evidence that workplace strength training specifically has a positive effect (all 9 strength-training studies pointed the same direction). There was limited evidence for ergonomics (not enough to guide practice) and strong evidence for no benefit from participatory ergonomics, multifaceted interventions, and stress management. The authors emphasize that because several intervention domains were very heterogeneous, conclusions about their effectiveness should be made with care, and that lack of effect may partly reflect implementation challenges rather than the interventions themselves.

78/100
Evidence StrengthStrong
Study Quality
Sample Size
Replication

Key Findings

Strong evidence that workplace strength training reduces MSDHigh

Within the physical exercise domain, all 9 strength-training studies (9 interventions; 5 from high-quality and 4 from medium-quality studies) pointed in the same positive direction, producing a stakeholder recommendation: 'Implementing strength training at the workplace can help reduce MSD among workers with physically demanding work.'

Moderate evidence that physical exercise overall has a positive effectHigh

16 of 23 interventions across 20 studies supported workplace physical exercise on MSD outcomes, yielding moderate evidence and a 'practice consideration' to consider implementing workplace exercise where applicable to the work context.

Limited evidence for ergonomics - not enough to guide practiceMedium

Across 13 ergonomics studies (15 interventions), 10 interventions showed no effect, producing limited evidence of no benefit and the message that there is not enough scientific evidence to guide current policies/practices.

Strong evidence for no benefit of participatory ergonomics, multifaceted interventions, and stress managementMedium

All 7 participatory ergonomics interventions, 13 of 16 multifaceted interventions, and all 3 stress-management interventions showed no benefit on MSD. The authors caution these domains were highly heterogeneous and lack of effect may partly reflect difficulties implementing such interventions in physically demanding workplaces.

Aerobic training and stretching had insufficient/mixed evidenceLow

Aerobic training (5 interventions, limited evidence) and stretching (4 interventions, mixed evidence) within the physical exercise domain did not provide enough evidence to guide practice.

No intervention domain was associated with negative effectsLow

The review explicitly states that none of the intervention domains were associated with 'negative effects' on MSD outcomes.

Study Methodology
Study Design
Systematic review with best-evidence synthesis following PRISMA and the Institute for Work & Health (IWH) guidelines; both RCTs and non-RCTs eligible; registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018116752). No meta-analysis was possible due to heterogeneity.
Sample Size
54 high- and medium-quality studies (36 RCTs, 18 non-RCTs) evaluating 69 unique workplace interventions; 82 papers initially included, of which 19 reported non-MSD outcomes and were excluded from the synthesis; per-study participant numbers not aggregated in the text
Duration
Literature published 1998-2018; study follow-up varied (e.g., average time to latest outcome measurement was 19.6 weeks for physical exercise, 42 weeks for ergonomics, 41 weeks for participatory ergonomics, and 31 weeks for multifaceted interventions)
Population
Adult workers with physically demanding work (e.g., construction, automotive, health care, slaughterhouse) who had musculoskeletal disorders (specific and non-specific MSD, pain, symptoms, or discomfort); 27 of 54 studies from Scandinavian countries, only 13 performed outside Europe
Outcome Measures
Change in musculoskeletal pain · Musculoskeletal symptoms · Prevalence of MSD/pain · Discomfort · IWH 16-item weighted quality appraisal score

Strengths

  • Included both RCTs and non-RCTs using the IWH best-evidence-synthesis approach, capturing valuable workplace evidence that an RCT-only review would have excluded (18 of 54 studies were non-RCTs).
  • Relevant stakeholders from construction and manufacturing work-environment communities were engaged across review steps, increasing practical relevance and dissemination.
  • Comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science Core Collection plus snowball searching; 15,556 records screened down to 54 synthesized studies.
  • Authors were contacted to clarify whether ambiguous studies were workplace-based, allowing inclusion of studies that would otherwise have been excluded.
  • Prospectively registered in PROSPERO with a previously published protocol; structured 16-item IWH quality appraisal with two independent assessors.

Limitations

  • Substantial heterogeneity in outcomes, study designs, and workplace contexts prevented meta-analysis, so the synthesis relied on a vote-counting-style best-evidence approach.
  • The best-evidence synthesis does not account for sample size - small studies count as much as large ones.
  • Findings are geographically skewed: 27 of 54 studies were from Scandinavia and only 13 from outside Europe, limiting generalizability.
  • Possible publication bias and language-restriction bias (English-only inclusion); studies with positive results may have been more likely to be eligible.
  • Heterogeneous domains (ergonomics, participatory ergonomics, multifaceted) could not be subdivided meaningfully, and lack of effect may reflect poor implementation rather than ineffective interventions.
  • Duration of MSD in included studies was not reported, and the longest follow-up was generally used, which could introduce some bias.

Key Takeaways for Patients

What This Means for You

  1. 01If your job is physically demanding and you have muscle or joint pain, a structured strength-training program at work has the strongest evidence for helping reduce that pain.
  2. 02Workplace exercise in general may help, especially when it fits your specific type of work.
  3. 03The review did not find clear evidence that ergonomics changes, worker-led (participatory) ergonomics programs, broad multi-part workplace programs, or stress-management at work reduce musculoskeletal pain - but this does not necessarily mean they cannot help; the studies were varied and may have been hard to implement well.
  4. 04None of the workplace approaches studied made musculoskeletal symptoms worse.
  5. 05These findings come mostly from European, especially Scandinavian, workplaces, so they may not apply equally everywhere.

Read the Full Paper

Access the complete peer-reviewed study from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

View Full Study

Related Research

●●●●● LandmarkSystematic Review

Effectiveness of Percutaneous Needle Electrolysis (PNE) and Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation (IMES) in the Management of Myofascial Pain Syndrome and Tendinopathies: A Systematic Review

Trybulski et al.·Journal of Clinical Medicine·2026

This systematic review found that PNE and IMES may improve pain and function in myofascial pain syndrome and tendinopathies, but evidence quality was limited by high risk of bias. Both techniques appear safe with only minor, self-limiting adverse events.

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkSystematic Review

Dry Needling in Sports and Sport Recovery: A Systematic Review with an Evidence Gap Map

Kużdżał et al.·Sports Medicine·2025

This systematic review of 24 studies found dry needling effectively reduces pain in injured athletes but shows mixed results for performance enhancement in healthy athletes. Significant research gaps exist for elite athletes and long-term effects.

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkNarrative Review

Myofascial Pain Syndrome: An Update on Clinical Characteristics, Etiopathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Steen et al.·Muscle & Nerve·2025

This comprehensive narrative review synthesizes current evidence on myofascial pain syndrome, finding sufficient support only for local anesthetic injections while highlighting that many common treatments lack adequate evidence.

Clinical Guidelines & Best PracticesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkMeta-analysis

Comparative effectiveness of noninvasive therapeutic interventions for myofascial pain syndrome: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Liu et al.·International Journal of Surgery·2024

Network meta-analysis of 40 RCTs found manual therapy, laser therapy, and extracorporeal shock wave therapy most effective for reducing pain and disability in myofascial pain syndrome. These three treatments showed benefits across pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, and functional outcomes comp

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →