Author's response to reviews Title: Process evaluation of a Participatory Ergonomics programme to prevent low back pain and neck pain among workers Authors: Maurice T Driessen ([email protected]) Karin I Proper ([email protected]) Johannes R Anema ([email protected]) Paulien M Bongers ([email protected]) Allard J van der Beek ([email protected]) Version: 4 Date: 8 July 2010 Author's response to reviews: see over

Dear Editor, Thank you very much for the editing of my manuscript. I agree with most of the changes made by the editorial team. Besides responding on the specific queries I also checked the changes made by the editorial team. I agree with most of the changes made, but not all (see my changes in the textual comments section of this cover letter). By using ‘track changes’ I adopted my changes in the uploaded manuscript (Driessen ms (JA copyedit) 41410 GA_MD). Furthermore, I critically checked my reference list and replaced et al. for the authors’ names. May there be any questions, don’t hesitate to contact me. On behalf of all authors, Maurice Driessen

Response on JA comments: JA1: 1 Body@Work TNO VUmc, Research Center on Physical Activity, Work and Health, VU University Medical Center, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2 Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands 3

TNO Quality of Life, Polarisavenue 151, 2132 JJ, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

JA2: Please write as: Attitude - Social iInfluence -– Self- –Eefficacy JA3: By using the an 1-10 point scale (very unsatisfied to very satisfied), [GA3]satisfaction with the perceived implemented ergonomic measure(s) was assessed…. Textual comments: Abstract: an university Page 5: an RCT Page 5: Please replace this sentence: By using this classification, participating departments were randomised into either the intervention group (Stay@Work PE programme) or the control group (no Stay@Work PE programme). For the following sentence: Within each company, one randomisation pair of two departments with comparable workloads was randomly allocated to either the intervention group (Stay@Work PE programme) or the control group (no Stay@Work PE programme ). Page 6: “Stay@Work”{. Page 11: At tThe level of the participant was defined as the number of workers who filled out the baseline questionnaire. Page 11: Recruitment/ and reach Page 12: By using the same components (fidelity and satisfaction) and measures (1-10 point scale) the Stay@Work ergocoach training was evaluated. Page 13: This method enabled the investigators researchers to calculate for each ergonomic measure of interest a percentage of the perceived implementation. Page 15: By using a procedure similar to the one for dose delivered, an overall perceived implementation percentage could was calculated. Page 15: One department with a mixed workload (n = 103 workers) dropped out of the study due to a sudden reorganisation, and no working group was re-formed at that department. Page 17: The results of this process evaluation showed that PE can be a feasible and successful strategy to develop and carry out an implementation plan with….. Page 22: Overall, it can be concluded that the Stay@Work PE programme is a successful

Comments on reference list: 2. Côté P, van der Velde G, Cassidy JD, Carroll LJ, Hogg-Johnson S, Holm LW, Carragee EJ, FACS, Haldeman S, Nordin M, Hurwitz EL, Guzman J, Peloso PM, FRCP et al.: The burden and determinants of neck pain in workers: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008, 33: S60-S74. 3. Westgaard R.H., Winkel J.: Ergonomic intervention research for improved musculoskeletal health: A critical review. Int J Ind Ergon 1997, 20: 463-500. 4. Boocock MG, McNair PJ, Larmer PJ, Armstrong B, Collier J, Simmonds M, Garrett N et al.: Interventions for the prevention and management of neck/upper extremity musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med 2007, 64: 291303. 5. Brewer S, Van Eerd D, Amick BC, Irvin E, Daum KM, Gerr F, Moore JS, Cullen K, Rempel D et al.: Workplace interventions to prevent musculoskeletal and visual symptoms and disorders among computer users: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil 2006, 16: 325-358. 6. Burton AK, Balague F, Cardon G, Eriksen HR, Henrotin Y, Lahad A, Leclerc A, Müller, van der Beek AJ et al.: Chapter 2. European guidelines for prevention in low back pain : November 2004. Eur Spine J 2006, 15 Suppl 2: S136-S168. 10.

van der Molen HF, Sluiter JK, Hulshof CT, Vink P, van Duivenbooden C, Holman R, Frings-Dresen MHW et al.: Implementation of participatory ergonomics intervention in construction companies. Scand J Work Environ Health 2005, 31: 191204.

22.

Haukka E, Leino-Arjas P, Viikari-Juntura E, Takala EP, Malmivaara A, Hopsu L, Mutanen P, Ketola R, Virtanen T, Pehkonen I, Holtari-Leino M, Nykänen J, Stenholm S, Nykyri E, Riihimäki H et al.: A randomised controlled trial on whether a participatory ergonomic intervention could prevent muskuloskeletal disorders. Occup Environ Med 2008, 65: 849-956.

33. Farmer AP, Léegarée F, Turcot L, Grimshaw J, Harvey E, McGowan JL, Wolf F et al.: Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008, CD004398. 39.

Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, Whitty P, Eccles MP, Matowe L, Shirran L, Wensing M, Dijkstra R, Donaldson C et al.: Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 2004, 8: iii1-72.

40. Pehkonen I, Takala EP, Ketola R, Viikari-Juntura E, Leino-Arjas P, Hopsu L et al., Virtanen T, Haukka E, Holtari-Leino M, Nykyri E, Riihimäki H: Evaluation of a participatory ergonomic intervention process in kitchen work. Appl Ergon 2009, 40: 115-123.