Nursing staff have an elevated risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders, in particular in the lower back area. Statistics produced by leading industrial nations show that back problems are the world’s number one work-related health problem, and that healthcare workers suffer from a greater occurrence of such problems than workers in other professions. In this context, many studies have examined manual patient handling activities, which was thought to be the main cause of musculoskeletal disorders of the lower back. But nurses have many other types of work to perform and several reviews have concluded that approaches which only focus on manual patient handling activities do not sufficiently reduce back problems in nursing professions. Other risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders of the lower back discussed in the literature included repeated bending and the high proportion of static trunk postures. The main aim of this doctoral thesis was therefore to examine the influence of stressful trunk postures on the physical workload of nursing staff in hospitals and nursing homes. It focuses on the type, number and extent of stressful postures and on identifying activities that encourage their occurrence. We used our findings to derive strategies for reducing stressful postures in nursing, and examined whether nursing staff regard such a reduction as actually relieving their physical workload. A secondary aim was to consider the older people potentially in need of care. The background to this is that, due to steadily rising costs, many older people are unable to afford care in a nursing home, and additionally that the forecast severe shortage of nursing staff in future gives reason to look for solutions that can reduce the demand for nursing staff. Among older people who still look after themselves, we therefore examined which stressful postures they adopt when carrying out domestic tasks such as cooking and washing laundry. From the results, we provided some examples of a better design of the domestic environment, which reduces stressful postures, when performing these tasks and helps older people to be able to look after themselves in their own homes for longer. / <p>QC 20140324</p>

Introduction : Au Canada, le traitement standard pour les jeunes présentant une scoliose idiopathique (SI) modérée consiste en un suivi médical sous forme d’observation et à la prescription du corset au besoin. La chirurgie est envisagée lorsque la scoliose est trop sévère. Cependant, le corset et la chirurgie ont un impact sur la mobilité et les fonctions physiques et respiratoire. Selon les lignes directrices européennes, la physiothérapie spécifique à la scoliose est recommandée afin de prévenir la progression de la déformation et d’améliorer la santé générale des jeunes. Objectifs : L’objectif général de cette étude préliminaire est de comparer l’effet de la rééducation posturale globale (RPG) additionnée au traitement standard (TS : observation ou corset) au TS additionné d’exercices de physiothérapie conventionnelle à domicile, d’une durée de six mois, sur l’angle de Cobb, la douleur au dos, la posture et la fonction respiratoire. Méthode : Un essai contrôlé randomisé a été mené auprès de 31 jeunes (6 garçons et 25 filles) présentant une SI (10 à 16 ans, angle de Cobb entre 15° et 45°, indice de Risser ≤ 3) recrutés à la clinique de scoliose du Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sainte-Justine, à Montréal, entre 2021 et 2023. Ils ont été randomisés dans les groupes RPG ou traitement standard (TS). Nous avons évalué l’angle de Cobb (radiographie), la douleur au dos (échelle numérique), la posture (déjettement du tronc mesuré avec un fil à plomb) et la fonction respiratoire (excursion diaphragmatique par ultrasonographie). Les analyses ont été menées en intention de traiter et per protocole et une analyse ANOVA à deux facteurs (Groupe x Temps) a été réalisée pour chaque paramètre. Résultats: Les résultats de l’ANOVA indiquent qu’il n’y a pas de différence statistiquement significative entre le groupe RPG et TS pour l’angle de Cobb (-1±5° vs -1±6°; p=0,632), la douleur de dos (-2±3 vs -2±5, p=0,645), le déjettement du tronc (-2±9 mm vs 0±10 mm, p=0,129) et l’excursion diaphragmatique bilatéralement (p > 0,05). Cependant, Il y a une amélioration cliniquement significative de la douleur au dos (-4±4, p=0,695) pour le groupe RPG, lorsque les participants adhèrent au protocole et une amélioration de l’angle de Cobb chez 27% des participants du groupe RPG comparativement à 21% pour le groupe TS. Conclusion: Cette présente étude ne démontre pas de différence statistiquement significative pour tous les paramètres avec cet échantillon. D’autres études avec un plus grand échantillon et des modifications au protocole seront nécessaires pour évaluer l’effet de la RPG sur les différents paramètres. / Introduction: In Canada, the standard care for adolescent with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) involves observation and bracing in moderate curve or surgery when the curve becomes too severe. However, both bracing and surgery impact mobility and physical and respiratory functions. According to European guidelines, physiotherapy scoliosis-specific exercises are recommended to prevent deformation progression and improve the overall health of adolescents. Objectives: The overall aim of this preliminary study is to compare the effect of global postural re-education (GPR) added to standard of care (SC: observation or brace) to SC added to conventional physiotherapy exercises at home over a six-month period, on Cobb angle, back pain, posture, and respiratory function. Method: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 31 adolescents (6 boys and 25 girls) with AIS (aged 10 to 16 years, Cobb angle between 15 and 45°, Risser sign ≤3) recruited from scoliosis clinic at Sainte-Justine University Hospital Center, Montreal, between 2021 and 2023. They were randomized into GPR or SC groups. We assessed Cobb angle, pain using a numerical scale, trunk deviation measured with a plumb line and diaphragmatic excursion by ultrasonography. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat and per-protocol basis, and a two-factor ANOVA analysis (Group x Time) was performed for each parameter. Results: ANOVA results indicate that there is no statistically significant difference between the GPR and SC groups for Cobb angle (-1±5° vs -1±6°; p=0,632), back pain (-2±3 vs -2±5, p=0,645), trunk posture (-2±9 mm vs 0±10 mm, p=0,129), and bilateral diaphragmatic excursion (p > 0,05). However, there is a clinically significant improvement in back pain (-4±4, p=0,695) for the GPR groups when participants adhere to the protocol and an improvement in Cobb angle in 27% of GPR group participants compared to 21% for the SC groups. Conclusion: The present study does not demonstrate a statistically significant difference for all the parameters with this sample. Further studies with a larger sample size and protocol modifications will be necessary to assess the effect of GPR on various parameters.