Research Article

Comparison of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Low Back Pain Status of Hospital Employees

Rıdvan Yıldız¹*, Meral Karakoç¹, Zeynep Yıldız Kızkın² and Onur Seçgin Nişancı²

¹Medical Techniques and Services, Dicle University, Atatürk Health Services Vocational School, Diyarbakır, Turkey

²Therapy and Rehabilitation, Artvin Çoruh University, Vocational School of Health Services, Artvin, Turkey

Submission:July 9, 2024;Published: July 26, 2024

*Corresponding author: Rıdvan Yildiz, Medical Techniques and Services, Dicle University, Atatürk Health Services Vocational School, Diyarbakır, Turkey

How to cite this article: Rıdvan Y, Meral K, Zeynep Yıldız K, Onur Seçgin N. Comparison of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Low Back Pain Status of Hospital Employees. J Yoga & Physio. 2024; 11(4): 555819 DOI:10.19080/JYP.2024.11.555819

Abstract

Objective: Our study was conducted to determine the physical activity levels, general nutritional status and low back pain of hospital workers and to explain the relationship between these variables.

Method: Individuals working in the hospital were included in the study. Then, the participants were divided into 5 groups according to their duties and titles. The physical activity levels of these groups were evaluated with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), their general nutritional status with the General Nutrition Knowledge Scale and their low back pain with the Quebec Low Back Pain Disability Scale. The evaluation was performed with SPSS 22 package program.

Results: Within the scope of our study, differences in physical activity levels were found among hospital employees. This difference was also observed in general nutritional status. In addition, the variability of physical activity level also caused variability in low back pain. However, there was no significant difference between the nutritional status of hospital workers.

Conclusion: Physical activity has an effect on low back pain and nutritional status. As the physical activity level increases, low back pain decreases and general nutritional status improves.

Keywords: Nutritional Status; Low Back Pain; Sedentary Behaviors; Global Health; Unhealthy Foods

Introduction

In today's world, the increase in the number of working individuals and changes in working patterns are the reasons that make work and workplace important. People are exposed to physical and psychological effects due to the increase in the time they spend at workplaces, being in an environment with different people and communities, and working in inactive positions throughout the day. This exposure results in health effects, increased sick leave and decreased productivity [1].

Although there are different reasons for the emergence of this situation, the contribution of inactivity as a result of sedentary behaviors in most of today's working styles is also great. Sedentary behaviors include not only lack of movement, but also the use of computers, internet and mobile phones, watching television and playing video games. In a lifestyle with sedentary behavior, serious problems in the musculoskeletal system arise along with obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases [2]. When this way of life is accompanied by unbalanced and malnutrition, it becomes a public health problem and a serious problem. In addition to worsening health conditions, mortality and morbidity, this problem also imposes serious economic burdens on countries. In one study, it was observed that the inactive-based lifestyle creates a global health expenditure of nearly 59 billion dollars [3,4].

In order to reduce this economic burden and to maintain individual and social health, it has become inevitable to implement interventions that encourage physical activity and ensure balanced and regular nutrition in workplaces. With these interventions, chronic diseases can be prevented, as well as a decrease in the leave of absence and an increase in productivity [5]. The hypothesis is that the physical activity levels and nutritional status of the participants in our study are effective on occupational disorders that may occur, and that improvement in physical activity and nutritional status will lead to a decrease in low back pain.

Material-Method

Participants

The population of our study consists of Diyarbakir Dicle University hospital employees. Necessary information was given to the individuals for the study and individuals who volunteered to participate in the study were included in the study.

Inclusion Criteria:

i. Volunteering to participate in the study

ii. Signing the consent form prepared for the study

iii. Over 18 years of age

Exclusion Criteria:

i. Under 18 years of age

ii. Not signing the consent form

Method

A personal information form was filled out for all individuals who agreed to participate in the study and signed the consent form. In order to evaluate the physical activity levels of the participants, the International Physical Activity Questionnaire consisting of 7 questions and based on the last week, the Quebec Low Back Pain Disability Scale to evaluate the disability caused by low back pain, and the General Nutritional Knowledge scale to evaluate their nutritional status were filled out.

Data Collection Tools

Descriptive information form

i. International physical activity survey

ii. Quebec low back pain disability scale

Benefits of exercise/obstacles of exercise scale

Descriptive Information Form

The Descriptive Information Form was created by the researchers by reviewing the literature. It consists of 4 questions about the descriptive characteristics of the students who will participate in the study such as gender, age, body mass index, smoking.

International Physical Activity Scale

The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) is a scale designed to examine the activity status of the individuals in the study in their daily routines. This scale consists of 7 questions evaluating the activity levels of individuals in the last one week. The validity and reliability analysis of this scale in our country was conducted by Melda ÖZTÜRK in 2005. The criterion validity of the scale was found to be r=0.29 for the long form and r=0.30 for the short form [6].

Quebec Low Back Pain Disability Scale

The Quebec Low Back Pain Disability Scale was developed in 1995 to assess low back pain during activities of daily living. An assessment parameter consisting of 20 questions with 5 antecedents was created to evaluate low back pain with the scale. In the scores to be obtained with the application of the scale, high scores indicate high disability [7,8].

General Nutrition Knowledge Scale

This scale was developed by Wardle and Permenter in 1999. The scale consists of 4 sections with a total of 127 questions. The questions are multiple-choice and aim to assess the general nutritional status of individuals. The validity and reliability analysis of this scale for our country was conducted by Alsaffar A. in 2011 [9,10].

Ethics

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki ("World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects," 2013) and informed consent was obtained before data collection. The studies were approved by Artvin Çoruh University Rectorate Ethics Committee (Document Date and Number: 04.07.2024-E-18457941-050.99-140908).

Statistical Analysis

IBM SPSS v27 (SPSS inc, Chicago, IL, USA) statistical program was used for data analysis. Frequency (n), percentage (%), mean (Mean) and standard deviation (SD) values were calculated from descriptive statistical methods in the evaluation of the data obtained from the study. The normality of the distribution of quantitative variables was examined using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. One-way ANOVA test was used to compare continuous variables between 3 or more groups and LSD test, one of the post-hoc multiple comparison tests, was preferred to find out between which groups the difference was due to unequal group sizes. Pearson correlation analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between quantitative variables. In the interpretation of the correlation coefficient (r), |r|≤30 was considered as a weak relationship, 30<|r|≤70 as a moderate relationship, and |r|>70 as a strong relationship. In all analyses, p<0.05 and p<0.01 levels were considered significant.

Findings

Of the healthcare personnel who participated in the study, 135 (54.2%) were male and 114 (45.8%) were female. The mean age was 33.11±8.37 years and mean BMI was 24.16±3.37 (Table 1).

When health personnel were analyzed according to occupational groups, no significant difference was observed between the groups in the variables of nutrition [F(4,244)=1.626, p=0.168] and low back pain [F(4,244)=1.001, p=0.408] (Table 2).

When the health personnel were analyzed according to their physical activity levels, a significant difference was observed between the groups in the nutrition variable [F(2,246)=4.988, p=0.008]. After the ANOVA test, LSD test, one of the post-hoc tests, was preferred to examine the pairwise comparisons in nutrition scores because the group sizes were not equal. As a result of this test, it was observed that the inactive group had lower nutrition scores than the minimum active group (p=0.015) and the active group (p=0.020) (Table 3).

When the health personnel were analyzed according to their physical activity levels, a significant difference was observed between the groups in the low back pain variable [F(2,246)=385.160, p<0.001]. After the ANOVA test, the LSD test, one of the post-hoc tests, was preferred to examine pairwise comparisons in nutrition scores because the group sizes were not equal. As a result of this test, it was observed that the inactive group had higher low back pain scores than the minimum active group (p<0.001) and the active group (p<0.001), and the minimum active group had higher low back pain scores than the active group (p<0.001) (Table 3).

According to the results of the correlation test to determine the relationship between nutrition and low back pain scores of healthcare personnel, a moderate negative linear relationship was observed (r=-0.497; p<0.001) (Table 4).

*One-Way ANOVA Testi; anlamlılık değeri p<0.05.

*Tek-Yönlü ANOVA Testi; anlamlılık değeri p<0.05.

*Pearson Korelasyon Testi, anlamlılık değeri p<0.05.

Discussion

Within the scope of our study, the study was carried out to examine the relationship between variables such as physical activity levels, general nutritional status and low back pain in hospital employees. As a result of our study, it was observed that there were significant differences between physical activity levels and nutritional status, physical activity and low back pain frequency, and general nutritional status and low back pain. When the literature is examined, it is seen that there are studies compatible with our study results.

Many studies investigating the relationship between physical activity and low back pain are available in the literature. In this context, the relationship between different types of physical activity and low back pain has been examined. In a study investigating the effect of exercise on low back pain and published in 2007, it was explained that the positive effect of exercising in the treatment of low back pain was seen in a short time compared to not exercising [11]. In addition, in another study comparing exercise with normal care, it was explained that the exercise group was significantly better than the other group in reducing low back pain [12]. In another study, it was stated that long-term exercise was effective in reducing work injuries [13].

When the studies investigating the effects of activities such as yoga, thi-chi and pilates, which are considered within the scope of physical activities, on low back pain are examined, it is explained that practicing yoga increases physical function even in the short term against groups that do not exercise [14]. In another study, it was explained that yoga was more effective on both pain and functionality compared to the group that only walked [15].

In a meta-analysis study in which such studies were examined, 118 studies were included in this meta-analysis within the scope of the study in which different physical activity modalities and pain-injury conditions were examined. As a result of the study, the researchers explained that other exercise and physical activity modalities other than stretching exercises were effective for chronic low back pain conditions; interventions other than McKenzei intervention were effective in dealing with disability conditions [16].

In our study, in line with the literature, we found that changes in physical activity levels can also make changes in low back pain. As a result of our study, it was determined that low levels of physical activity were associated with high levels of low back pain, while high levels of physical activity were associated with low levels of low back pain. It is seen that changes in physical activity levels cause changes not only in low back pain but also in nutritional status. In a study conducted in 2018, in a study investigating the nutritional status of individuals before and after exercise, the participants' healthy and unhealthy food choices were examined after exercise, and it was explained that the rate of unhealthy food intake was higher after exercise than before exercise [17].

In another similar study, a study was conducted with passive spectators. In this context, the healthy-unhealthy food choices of the participants who watched any sport were examined and it was explained that the participants' tendency towards unhealthy foods was higher [18].

In our evaluation within the scope of our study, it was observed that lower nutrition scores were obtained in the inactive group, while higher nutrition scores were obtained in the very active group.

Conclusion

The difference in the physical activity levels of hospital workers revealed different effects on their nutritional status and low back pain. These different effects were realized in the form of physical activity reducing low back pain and improving nutritional status.

References

1. Hutchinson AD, Wilson C (2012) Improving nutrition and physical activity in the workplace: a meta-analysis of intervention studies. Health Promotion Int 27(2): 238-249.
2. Mahdavi SB, Riahi R, Vahdatpour B, Kelishadi R (2021) Association between sedentary behavior and low back pain; A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Promotion Perspectives 11(4): 393-410.
3. Ding D, Lawson KD, Kolbe-Alexander TL, Finkelstein EA, Katzmarzyk PT, et al. (2016) The economic burden of physical inactivity: a global analysis of major non-communicable diseases. Lancet 388(10051): 1311-1324.
4. Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, Puska P, Blair SN, et al. (2012) Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet 380(9838): 219-229.
5. Van Dongen JM, Proper KI, Van Wier MF, Van der Beek AJ, Bongers PM, et al. (2011) Systematic review on the financial return of worksite health promotion programmes aimed at improving nutrition and/or increasing physical activity. Obes Rev 12(12): 1031-1049.
6. Öztürk M (2005) Üniversitelerde eğitim-öğretim gören öğrencilerde uluslararası fiziksel aktivite anketinin geçerliliği ve güvenirliği ve fiziksel aktivite düzeylerinin belirlenmesi Hacettepe Üniversitesi]. Ankara.
7. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al. (1995) The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Measurement properties. Spine 20(3): 341-352.
8. Melikoglu MA, Kocabas H, Sezer I, Bilgilisoy M, Tuncer T (2009) Validation of the Turkish version of the Quebec back pain disability scale for patients with low back pain. Spine 34(6): E219-E224.
9. Alsaffar AA (2012) Validation of a general nutrition knowledge questionnaire in a Turkish student sample. Public Health Nutrition 15(11): 2074-2085.
10. Parmenter K, Wardle J (1999) Development of a general nutrition knowledge questionnaire for adults. Eur J Clin Nutr 53(4): 298-308.
11. Chou R, Huffman LH (2007) Nonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Internal Med 147(7): 492-504.
12. Van Middelkoop M, Rubinstein SM, Verhagen AP, Ostelo RW, Koes BW, et al. (2010) Exercise therapy for chronic nonspecific low-back pain. Best Practice & Res Clin Rheum 24(2): 193-204.
13. Oesch P, Kool J, Hagen KB, Bachmann S (2010) Effectiveness of exercise on work disability in patients with non-acute non-specific low back pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Rehabil Med 42(3): 193-205.
14. Williams K, Abildso C, Steinberg L, Doyle E, Epstein B, et al. (2009) Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficacy of Iyengar yoga therapy on chronic low back pain. Spine 34(19): 2066-2076.
15. Wieland LS, Skoetz N, Pilkington K, Vempati R, D'Adamo CR, et al. (2017) Yoga treatment for chronic non‐specific low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1(1): CD010671.
16. Fernández-Rodríguez R, Álvarez-Bueno C, Cavero-Redondo I, Torres-Costoso A, Pozuelo-Carrascosa DP, et al. (2022) Best Exercise Options for Reducing Pain and Disability in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: Pilates, Strength, Core-Based, and Mind-Body. A Network Meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 52(8): 505-521.
17. Gustafson CR, Rakhmatullaeva N, Beckford SE, Ammachathram A, Cristobal A, et al. (2018) Exercise and the Timing of Snack Choice: Healthy Snack Choice is Reduced in the Post-Exercise State. Nutrients 10(12): 1941.
18. Koenigstorfer J (2018) Childhood Experiences and Sporting Event Visitors' Preference for Unhealthy versus Healthy Foods: Priming the Route to Obesity? Nutrients 10(11): 1670.