









































ANNALES KINESIOLOGIAE • 16 • 2025 • 1

47

Original scientific article           doi: https://doi.org/10.35469/ak.2025.498
received: 2025-03-10      UDC: 616.711:796.011.1

THE EFFECT OF BOOSTER BREAKS ON NON-SPECIFIC 
LOW BACK PAIN IN OFFICE WORKERS

Tajda URŠIČ1 & Uroš MARUŠIČ1,2

1 Alma Mater Europaea University, Department of Health Sciences, Slovenia
2 Science and Research Centre Koper, Institute for Kinesiology Research, Slovenia

Corresponding author:
Uroš MARUŠIČ

Science and Research Centre Koper, Institute for Kinesiology Research, Garibaldijeva 
1, Koper, Slovenia

Phone: +386 5 663 77 00
E-mail: uros.marusic@zrs-kp.si

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Prolonged sitting has a negative effect on office workers, and non-specific 
low back pain (NSLBP) is one of the most common consequences of an inactive lifestyle 
and prolonged sitting. Active breaks are a promising intervention to reduce the negative 
effects of office work.

Methods: Forty-two office workers from a Slovenian company were divided into an 
experimental group (24 office workers who had been taking active breaks for one and 
a half years) and a control group (N=18, no active breaks). The participants were not 
randomly allocated to the groups; allocation was based on availability and voluntary 
participation. 

An online survey was conducted using the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI 2.0) 
and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). This was a non-randomized, two-arm longitudi-
nal study. Questionnaires were administered once, 1.5 years after the intervention. 
Statistical analyses were conducted using the Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed-
-rank tests, with the level of significance set at p ≤ 0.05.

Results: The results showed that 81% of office workers had experienced NSLBP at 
least once in their lives. The ODI 2.0 scores were not significantly lower in the experi-
mental group (p = 0.155). However, pain intensity was lower in office workers who took 
active breaks (p = 0.001). All the participants in the experimental group reported that 
active breaks had a positive effect on their well-being (100%). Furthermore, 37.5% of 



48

Tajda URŠIČ, Uroš MARUŠIČ: THE EFFECT OF BOOSTER BREAKS ON NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN IN OFFICE WORKERS, 47–60

ANNALES KINESIOLOGIAE • 16 • 2025 • 1

the participants stated that they had become more physically active outside the office 
as a result of the active breaks.

Conclusion: Introducing active breaks into the daily routine of office workers is a 
viable and effective intervention to mitigate the risk of NSLBP. Active breaks offer a 
comprehensive solution: they not only reduce the negative effects of prolonged sitting, 
but also reduce stress, improve work efficiency and focus, and promote better moods. 

Keywords: non-specific low back pain, ergonomics, booster breaks, prolonged sit-
ting, office workers.

VPLIV AKTIVNIH ODMOROV NA POJAV NESPECIFIČNE 
BOLEČINE V KRIŽU PRI PISARNIŠKIH DELAVCIH

IZVLEČEK

Cilj: Dolgotrajno sedenje negativno vpliva na pisarniške delavce, nespecifična bo-
lečina v križu (NBVK) pa je ena najpogostejših posledic neaktivnega načina življenja 
in dolgotrajnega sedenja. Aktivni odmori so učinkovita intervencija za zmanjšanje ne-
gativnih posledic pisarniškega dela.

Metode: V raziskavi je sodelovalo 42 pisarniških delavcev podjetja Intra Lighting 
d. o. o., ki so bili razdeljeni v dve skupini: eksperimentalno (24 pisarniških delavcev, ki 
že leto in pol izvajajo aktivne odmore) in kontrolno (18 pisarniških delavcev, ki ne izva-
jajo aktivnih odmorov). Udeleženci niso bili naključno razporejeni v skupine, temveč je 
razporeditev temeljila na razpoložljivosti in prostovoljni udeležbi. Anketiranje je bilo 
izvedeno prek spletnega vprašalnika 1Ka, pri čemer smo uporabili Oswestry Disability 
Index (ODI 2.0) in vidno analogno lestvico (VAL). Študija je bila nerandomizirana 
longitudinalna študija z dvema skupinama. Vprašalniki so bili izpolnjeni enkrat, leto in 
pol po intervenciji. Statistične analize so bile izvedene z uporabo Mann–Whitneyjevega 
in Wilcoxonovega testa, pri čemer je bila raven statistične značilnosti določena na p 
≤ 0,05.

Rezultati: Rezultati so pokazali, da je 81 % pisarniških delavcev vsaj enkrat v ži-
vljenju doživelo NBVK. Število točk na lestvici ODI 2.0 pri eksperimentalni skupini 
ni bilo signifikantno nižje (p = 0,155). Vendar pa se je stopnja bolečine po VAL pri 
eksperimentalni skupini znižala (p = 0,001). Vse raziskovane osebe v eksperimentalni 
skupini so potrdile, da so se zaradi aktivnih odmorov bolje splošno počutile (100 %). 
Poleg tega je 37,5 % anketirancev poročalo, da so zaradi aktivnih odmorov med delom 
postali bolj telesno dejavni tudi zunaj službe.



ANNALES KINESIOLOGIAE • 16 • 2025 • 1

49

Tajda URŠIČ, Uroš MARUŠIČ: THE EFFECT OF BOOSTER BREAKS ON NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN IN OFFICE WORKERS, 47–60

Zaključek: Uvajanje aktivnih odmorov v dnevno rutino pisarniških delavcev je 
učinkovita in izvedljiva intervencija za zmanjšanje tveganja za nastanek NBVK. Zato 
je priporočljivo, da se ta praksa uvede v čim več podjetjih s pisarniškim delom. Aktivni 
odmori so vsestranska rešitev. Poleg zmanjšanja negativnih posledic dolgotrajnega se-
denja, zmanjšujejo tudi stres, izboljšujejo delovno učinkovitost in pozornost in blago-
dejno vplivajo na splošno počutje.

Ključne besede: nespecifična bolečina v križu, ergonomija, aktivni odmori, dol-
gotrajno sedenje, pisarniški delavci.



50

Tajda URŠIČ, Uroš MARUŠIČ: THE EFFECT OF BOOSTER BREAKS ON NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN IN OFFICE WORKERS, 47–60

ANNALES KINESIOLOGIAE • 16 • 2025 • 1

INTRODUCTION

Sedentary office work has a detrimental effect on an individual’s physical 
and mental well-being. Prolonged sitting and extensive computer use signifi-
cantly contribute to vision impairment, musculoskeletal disorders, headaches, 
and stress. These symptoms often arise due to poor workplace ergonomics and 
the nature of office work, which requires extended periods of sitting without 
sufficient physical activity breaks (Balci & Aghazadeh, 2004). One of the most 
common health issues among office workers is low back pain (LBP). Within 12 
months of employment, between 34% and 51% of office workers experience 
LBP. This condition affects an individual’s well-being, productivity, and overall 
quality of life. Prolonged static muscle activation while sitting can lead to inc-
reased muscle tension, fatigue, soft tissue disorders, and damage to ligaments 
and intervertebral discs. Additionally, prolonged sitting often causes discom-
fort in the lumbar region, which often progresses into pain (Waongenngarm, 
Areerak, & Janwantanakul, 2018).

Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) refers to LBP without a known speci-
fic physical cause. In contrast, LBP can also result from identifiable causes such 
as radicular syndrome (nerve root compression), trauma, infection, or tumors. 
NSLBP accounts for 90% of all LBP cases. It is a widespread issue, affecting 
60%–90% of the population at least once in their lifetime (Bekkering et al., 
2003). Recurrent pain is defined as multiple episodes of LBP within one year, 
with each episode classified as acute (0–6 weeks), subacute (7–12 weeks), or 
chronic (lasting more than 12 weeks) (Bekkering et al., 2003). Acute episodes 
of low-intensity pain are more common, but in some cases, pain persists for 
months or even years, becoming chronic (Tidy, 2020). In such cases, physi-
otherapeutic treatment aims to restore the individual’s functional capacity to 
the highest possible level or to the level of physical activity they had before 
the onset of the NSLBP. The most critical aspect of the treatment is educa-
ting patients about the causes and nature of their pain and motivating them to 
engage in physical activity. Research has demonstrated (Waddell et al., 1997; 
Van Tulder, Malmivaara, Esmail, & Koes, 2000; Hagen, Hilde, Jamtvedt, & 
Winemm, 2000) that bed rest is not an effective treatment for acute NSLBP and 
may even prolong rehabilitation. Instead, remaining physically active during 
the subacute phase has been shown to accelerate recovery and facilitate an ear-
lier return to work. Furthermore, physically active individuals have a lower risk 
of developing chronic NSLBP (Bekkering et al., 2003).

Kinesiotherapy is the most effective method for managing NSLBP. 
Although the optimal type of physical activity has not entirely been established, 



ANNALES KINESIOLOGIAE • 16 • 2025 • 1

51

Tajda URŠIČ, Uroš MARUŠIČ: THE EFFECT OF BOOSTER BREAKS ON NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN IN OFFICE WORKERS, 47–60

muscle-strengthening, stabilization, and flexibility exercises are crucial compo-
nents of treatment (Bekkering et al., 2003). An effective strategy to reduce both 
physical (including NSLBP) and psychological issues in the workplace is the 
appropriate scheduling of work and breaks. Research indicates that frequent 
short breaks are more beneficial for workers’ psycho-physical well-being than 
fewer, longer breaks. Studies suggest that “micro” breaks every 15 minutes 
help alleviate muscle tension in the neck, back, and arms, reduce eye strain 
from computer use, and improve cognitive performance in terms of speed and 
accuracy. Therefore, frequent short breaks contribute significantly to the ove-
rall comfort and efficiency of office workers who rely on computers (Balci & 
Aghazadeh, 2004).

Additionally, the type of break taken—active or passive—is important. An 
active break, also known as a ”Booster Break”, is an organized break desi-
gned to enhance physical and mental health. It has been shown to improve the 
employees’ well-being and productivity. An active break typically lasts 10–15 
minutes and is led by either a trained employee or an external instructor. It in-
cludes stretching exercises for muscles that remain contracted while sitting, and 
strengthening exercises for muscles that are overstretched in a seated position, 
as well as breathing exercises. Other forms of active breaks include yoga, Tai 
Chi, or meditation. Engaging in active breaks can also encourage employees 
to adopt a healthier lifestyle and become more physically active outside the 
workplace (Taylor, 2005).

The aim of this study was to examine whether active breaks can reduce the 
level of NSLBP and/or prevent its occurrence among office workers due to pro-
longed sitting. Based on the existing literature, we hypothesized that: (1) active 
breaks will reduce the intensity of NSLBP as measured by the VAS; (2) office 
workers who engage in active breaks will report more physical activity outside 
of work; and (3) the experimental group will score better on the ODI 2.0 and 
VAS compared to the control group.

METHOD

Sample

The sampling method was opportunistic. Data was collected from office 
workers at Intra Lighting d.o.o., located in Šempeter pri Gorici (Slovenia). The 
participants were not randomly allocated. The division into groups was based 
on voluntary participation and accessibility, which may introduce selection 



52

Tajda URŠIČ, Uroš MARUŠIČ: THE EFFECT OF BOOSTER BREAKS ON NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN IN OFFICE WORKERS, 47–60

ANNALES KINESIOLOGIAE • 16 • 2025 • 1

bias. Our study was a non-randomized two-arm longitudinal study, the questi-
onnaires were collected once, after 1.5 years of the intervention. The experi-
mental group consisted of office workers who had been taking 10-minute active 
breaks twice a week for a year and a half (n = 24). The control group comprised 
other office workers in the company who had not participated in the active bre-
aks (n = 18). The exclusion criterion was a diagnosed pathology in the lumbar 
region (not NSLBP). 

Intervention

The intervention consisted of 10-minute guided active breaks, conducted 
twice a week for a duration of one and a half years. The sessions were led by a 
licensed kinesiologist and included a combination of breathing exercises, stret-
ching of shortened muscles (e.g., hip flexors and chest), strengthening exercises 
for underactive muscles (e.g., gluteal and core muscles), and posture correcti-
on activities. The exercises were designed to address the effects of prolonged 
sitting and were modified according to the participants’ needs. The sessions 
were performed in the office during working hours and required no special 
equipment. 

The study was conducted in January 2021. A total of 67 respondents com-
pleted the online questionnaire, of whom 45 submitted valid responses. Three 
respondents were diagnosed with specific pathologies in the lower back region 
(disk herniation, vertebral collapse, and an undisclosed condition) and were 
excluded from statistical analysis. The final sample consisted of 42 office wor-
kers, including 11 women (26%) and 31 men (74%). The average age of the 
respondents was 39.8 ± 8.6 years, with the youngest being 24 and the oldest 60.

Instruments

The online questionnaire was created using EnKlikAnketa (1KA, Arnes, 
Slovenia). The questions were designed based on the study’s three hypothe-
ses, with the exception of questions 5, 12, and 13. Question 5 represents the 
Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI 2.0), while questions 12 and 13 correspond 
to the Visual Analog Scale (VAS).



ANNALES KINESIOLOGIAE • 16 • 2025 • 1

53

Tajda URŠIČ, Uroš MARUŠIČ: THE EFFECT OF BOOSTER BREAKS ON NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN IN OFFICE WORKERS, 47–60

Oswestry Disability Index (ODI 2.0)

The ODI 2.0 questionnaire consists of 10 categories of daily activities, with 
the respondents selecting one answer per category (0–5). The ODI score (index) 
is calculated using the formula: (total score / total possible score) × 100 = %.

Interpretation of the scores:
 – 0%–20%: minimal disability – The patient can cope with most daily 

activities,
 – 21%–40%: moderate disability – Increased pain and difficulty with sit-

ting, lifting, and standing; work and social life may be affected,
 – 41%–60%: severe disability – Pain significantly affects daily activities; 

further investigation is required,
 – 61%–80%: crippled – Pain interferes with all aspects of life, requiring 

intervention,
 – 81%–100%: either bed-bound or exaggerating symptoms (Physiopedia, 

2021).
The ODI 2.0 questionnaire has been validated and translated into Slovenian 

and its reliability has been confirmed and its use permitted for this research 
(Klemenc-Ketiš, 2011). The questionnaire was used to compare NSLBP betwe-
en employees who participated in active breaks and those who did not.

Visual Analog Scale (VAS)

The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to assess self-reported pain inten-
sity. The participants were asked to indicate their current level of low back pain 
on a 10-point horizontal line, where 0 represents “no pain” and 10 represents 
the “worst imaginable pain.” The score was measured in centimeters from the 
left end of the line. The participants completed this assessment independently 
online as part of the survey. VAS is a widely used tool for self-assessing pain 
intensity (Jakovljević & Puh, 2014). This study used the VAS results to compa-
re NSLBP intensity in the experimental group before and after participating in 
active breaks for a year and a half.



54

Tajda URŠIČ, Uroš MARUŠIČ: THE EFFECT OF BOOSTER BREAKS ON NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN IN OFFICE WORKERS, 47–60

ANNALES KINESIOLOGIAE • 16 • 2025 • 1

Assessment of Physical Activity

Self-reported physical activity was assessed using multiple-choice questi-
ons included in the online questionnaire. The questions (except for questions 5, 
12, and 13) inquired about the frequency, duration, and type of physical activity 
performed outside working hours. The participants were asked to compare their 
current level of physical activity to the period before the COVID-19 pandemic. 
The responses were used to assess changes in physical activity patterns and 
lifestyle.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Office 
365, 2019) and SPSS (version 26.0, IBM, 2018). Due to the non-normal distri-
bution of data, non-parametric tests were used. The Mann-Whitney U test was 
applied to hypothesis 2, while the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test was used for 
hypothesis 3. A significance level of p ≤ 0.05 was adopted for all the analyses. 
For non-normally distributed data, the results were reported using median and 
interquartile range (IQR), as appropriate for non-parametric analyses.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents data on the presence and duration of NSLBP among office 
workers in the company. The results indicate that a significant majority (81%) 
of office workers have experienced NSLBP at least once in their lifetime. In 
most cases (85%), the duration of the NSLBP was short, with workers experi-
encing the acute phase (0–6 weeks). Only 6% of all NSLBP cases lasted longer 
than 12 weeks and became chronic.

Table 2 presents the ODI scores for the experimental group, consisting of 
office workers who participated in active breaks, and the control group, consi-
sting of office workers who did not participate in active breaks. There were no 
differences between the groups. Furthermore, all the participants in both gro-
ups had an ODI index of between 0% and 20%, indicating minimal disability, 
meaning that they were able to perform most daily activities without major 
limitations.



ANNALES KINESIOLOGIAE • 16 • 2025 • 1

55

Tajda URŠIČ, Uroš MARUŠIČ: THE EFFECT OF BOOSTER BREAKS ON NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN IN OFFICE WORKERS, 47–60

Table 3 presents the VAS scores for the experimental group (n = 24) before 
and after participating in active breaks for a year and a half. The results show a 
decrease in the pain levels on the VAS after this period (p = 0.001).

Table 4 presents additional data from the online questionnaire regarding the 
effects of active breaks on well-being, physical activity outside of working ho-
urs, and a comparison of physical activity before and during the COVID-19 
era. All office workers in the experimental group (n = 24) reported improved 
well-being as a result of taking active breaks at work. Additionally, 37.5% of 
them reported increased physical activity outside of work due to their partici-
pation in active breaks. However, the COVID-19 era had an impact on physical 
inactivity among office workers. In total, 46% of office workers in the company 
reported being less physically active, while 38% maintained the same level of 
physical activity as before the pandemic.

Table 1: The presence of NSLBP and its duration in office workers of Intra 
Lighting d.o.o.

NLBP N %

Yes 34 81

No 8 19

Duration of NLBP N %

0-6 weeks 29 85

7-12 weeks 3 9

> 12 weeks 2 6

Table 2: ODI scores of office workers in Intra Lighting d.o.o., and the p value 
of the Mann-Whitney Test

ODI N M IQR P

Active breaks 24 2.3 0.49–4.49
0.155

No active breaks 18 1.8 0.46–2.29
* p ≤ 0.05



56

Tajda URŠIČ, Uroš MARUŠIČ: THE EFFECT OF BOOSTER BREAKS ON NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN IN OFFICE WORKERS, 47–60

ANNALES KINESIOLOGIAE • 16 • 2025 • 1

Table 3: VAS scores comparison before and currently in office workers who 
have been taking active breaks, and the p value of the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks 
Test

VAS N M IQR min max P

Before active breaks 24 3.3 1.58–4.95 0 10
0.001

Current 24 1.9 1.29–2.61 0 4
* p ≤ 0.05

Table 4: The impact of active breaks on better well-being, physical activ-
ity outside working hours, and a comparison of physical activity in the 
COVID-19 era vs before

Taking active breaks N (%)

Yes No

24 (57) 18 (43)

Better well-being due to taking active breaks N (%)

Yes No

24 (100) 0 (0)

More physical activity outside working hours because of taking active breaks N (%)

Yes No The same

9 (37.5) 3 (12.5) 12 (50)

Physical activity in the COVID-19 era VS. Before N (%)

More Less Same Do not know

6 (14) 19 (46) 16 (38) 1 (2)



ANNALES KINESIOLOGIAE • 16 • 2025 • 1

57

Tajda URŠIČ, Uroš MARUŠIČ: THE EFFECT OF BOOSTER BREAKS ON NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN IN OFFICE WORKERS, 47–60

DISCUSSION

Our study yielded results similar to previous research on NSLBP. Most of 
the office workers in the company had experienced NSLBP at least once in their 
lifetime, which aligns with findings from earlier studies (Bekkering et al., 2003; 
Waongenngarm et al., 2018). Additionally, our study confirmed that NSLBP is 
the most prevalent form of LBP (Tidy, 2020).

We initially hypothesized that office workers who participated in active bre-
aks would score significantly lower on the ODI 2.0 compared to those who did 
not participate. However, the results did not support this hypothesis, as there 
was no difference in the ODI 2.0 scores between the experimental and control 
groups. Interestingly, the control group had slightly lower ODI 2.0 scores on 
average. A possible explanation for this outcome is that office workers experi-
encing NSLBP might have been more motivated to engage in active breaks as a 
strategy to reduce their pain and disability. Conversely, those who did not suffer 
from NSLBP may have perceived active breaks as unnecessary or ineffective.

Furthermore, our study may have been limited by the overall low ODI 
scores among participants, which prevented effective comparison. All the of-
fice workers in the study had ODI scores within the minimal disability range 
(0%–20%), indicating that their ability to perform daily activities was not im-
paired. Expanding the study to include office workers from other companies or 
those with higher ODI scores would improve the comparison and strengthen 
the findings.

The primary goal of this study was to determine whether taking active bre-
aks at work could reduce NSLBP among office workers. The results indicate 
that office workers who participated in active breaks experienced a reduction in 
pain levels, as measured by the VAS, after a year and a half of participation (p 
= 0.001). Additionally, all the participants in the experimental group reported 
that the active breaks positively affected their well-being, which is consistent 
with findings from previous studies (Balci & Aghazadeh, 2004). Furthermore, a 
notable portion (37.5%) of the participants stated that engaging in active breaks 
at work encouraged them to be more physically active outside the workplace 
(Taylor, 2005).

One of the limitations of this study is the lack of randomization between 
groups. This non-random group assignment may have introduced selection 
bias, limiting the internal validity of the findings.

Future research on active breaks should consider both the strengths and 
limitations of the current study. Our study could be expanded by comparing 
different types of active breaks and their effectiveness in reducing NSLBP. 



58

Tajda URŠIČ, Uroš MARUŠIČ: THE EFFECT OF BOOSTER BREAKS ON NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN IN OFFICE WORKERS, 47–60

ANNALES KINESIOLOGIAE • 16 • 2025 • 1

The active breaks in our study consisted of breathing exercises, core activation 
exercises, stretching for tense muscles, and strength exercises for weaker mu-
scles. However, active breaks can include a variety of physical activities. For 
example, previous research (Kim, Lee, Oh, Kim, & Yoon, 2019) has shown that 
simulated horseback riding (SHR) systems effectively reduce chronic NSLBP 
and improve functional disability. Additionally, alternative workplace interven-
tions, such as sit-stand workstations (Agarwal, Steinmaus & Harris-Adamson, 
2018), active standing (Marusic, Müller, Alexander, & Bohnen, 2020; van 
Emde Boas et al., 2024), and cycling workstations (Koren, Pišot, & Šimunič, 
2016), have been explored as strategies to reduce the negative effects of prolon-
ged sitting. While higher intensity activity (80W cycling) at work may be detri-
mental to cognitive performance (Koren et al., 2016), standing or engaging in 
controlled medio-lateral dynamic movement while standing is unlikely to im-
pair cognition—particularly selective attention and cognitive control (Šömen, 
Peskar, Wollesen, Gramann, & Marusic, 2023; Marusic et al, 2020). Future 
research might investigate the combined effects of active breaks and adjustable 
standing desks to determine the most effective strategy for mitigating NSLBP.

CONCLUSION

NSLBP is one of the most common musculoskeletal issues associated with 
prolonged sitting in office workers (Waongenngarm et al., 2018). Physical ac-
tivity is a well-established intervention for mitigating the negative effects of 
prolonged sitting (Balci & Aghazadeh, 2004). Our study confirmed that 81% of 
office workers in the company had experienced NSLBP at least once in their li-
fetime. Importantly, office workers who engaged in active breaks for a year and 
a half reported a reduction in pain levels as measured by the VAS. Moreover, 
all the participants in the experimental group unanimously agreed that active 
breaks positively impacted their overall well-being. However, there was no dif-
ference in the ODI 2.0 scores between the experimental and control groups. It is 
important to note that the study did not use random allocation to groups, which 
may limit the generalizability of the results.



ANNALES KINESIOLOGIAE • 16 • 2025 • 1

59

Tajda URŠIČ, Uroš MARUŠIČ: THE EFFECT OF BOOSTER BREAKS ON NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN IN OFFICE WORKERS, 47–60

Future Directions

The implementation of active breaks in as many office-based companies as 
possible could lead to a reduction in healthcare burdens, including fewer sick 
days due to NSLBP and other musculoskeletal disorders. More importantly, 
regular active breaks could promote a healthier and more active lifestyle among 
office workers, leading to increased motivation, job satisfaction, and overall 
well-being.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, S., Steinmaus, C., & Harris-Adamson, C. (2018). Sit-stand workstati-
ons and impact on low back discomfort: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 
Ergonomics, 61(4), 538-552. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2017.1402960.

Balci, R., & Aghazadeh, F. (2004). Effects of exercise breaks on performance, muscu-
lar load, and perceived discomfort in data entry and cognitive tasks. Computers & 
Industrial Engineering, 46(3), 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2004.01.003.

Bekkering, G. E., Hendriks, H. J. M., Koes, B. W., Oostendorp, R. A. B., Ostelo, R. 
W. J. G., Thomassen, J. M. C. & van Tulder, M. W. (2003). Dutch physiotherapy 
guidelines for low back pain. Physiotherapy, 89(2), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0031-9406(05)60579-2.

Hagen, K. B., Hilde, G., Jamtvedt, G. & Winemm, M. F. (2000). The Cochrane 
review of bed rest for acute low back pain and sciatica. Spine, 25(22). 2932–2939. 
https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200011150-00016.

Jakovljević, M., & Puh, U. (2014). Ocenjevanje intenzivnosti bolečine z vidno analo-
gno lestvico [Pain intensity assessment using visual analogue scale]. Fizioterapija, 
22(2), 46–55. Retrieved from https://physio.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/7.-22-
-2-Ocenjevanje-intenzivnosti-bolecine.pdf.

Kim, T. Y., Lee, J. H., Oh, S. J., Kim, S. & Yoon, B. C. (2019). Effectiveness of si-
mulated horseback riding for chronic low back pain patients: A randomized control-
led trial. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 29(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1123/
jsr.2018-0252.

Klemenc-Ketiš, Z. (2011). Disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back 
pain: validation of the Slovene version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Slovenian 
Journal of Public Health, 50(2), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10152-010-0031-8.

Koren, K., Pišot, R., & Šimunič, B. (2016). Active workstation allows office workers 
to work efficiently while sitting and exercising moderately. Applied ergonomics, 54, 
83-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.11.013.

Marusic, U., Müller, M. L., Alexander, N. B., & Bohnen, N. I. (2020). Feasibility and 
behavioral effects of prolonged static and dynamic standing as compared to sitting 
in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. BMC geriatrics, 20(1), 1-8. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12877-020-01600-0.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2017.1402960
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2004.01.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9406(05)60579-2
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9406(05)60579-2
https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200011150-00016
https://physio.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/7.-22-2-Ocenjevanje-intenzivnosti-bolecine.pdf
https://physio.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/7.-22-2-Ocenjevanje-intenzivnosti-bolecine.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2018-0252
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2018-0252
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10152-010-0031-8 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.11.013
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01600-0
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01600-0


60

Tajda URŠIČ, Uroš MARUŠIČ: THE EFFECT OF BOOSTER BREAKS ON NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN IN OFFICE WORKERS, 47–60

ANNALES KINESIOLOGIAE • 16 • 2025 • 1

Physiopedia. (2021). Oswestry Disability Index. Physiopedia. Retrieved from https://
www.physio-pedia.com/Oswestry_Disability_Index#cite_note-4. 

Šömen, M. M., Peskar, M., Wollesen, B., Gramann, K., & Marusic, U. (2023). 
Does standing up enhance performance on the stroop task in healthy young adults? 
A systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of environmental re-
search and public health, 20(3), 2319. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032319.

Taylor, W. C. (2005). Transforming work breaks to promote health. American 
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 29(5), 461–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
amepre.2005.08.040.

Tidy, C. (2020). Lower back pain. Patient. Retrieved from https://patient.info/
bones-joints-muscles/back-and-spine-pain/lower-back-pain.

Van Emde Boas, M., Pongmala, C., Biddix, A. M., Griggs, A., Luker, A. T., Carli, 
G., ... & Bohnen, N. I. (2024). Post-physical therapy 4-month in-home dynamic 
standing protocol maintains physical therapy gains and improves mobility, balance 
confidence, fear of falling and quality of life in Parkinson’s Disease: A randomized 
controlled examiner-blinded feasibility clinical trial. Journal of Frailty, Sarcopenia 
and Falls, 9(4), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.22540/JFSF-09-267.

Van Tulder, M., Malmivaara , A., Esmail, R. & Koes, B. (2000). Exercise thera-
py for low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the cochra-
ne collaboration back review group. Spine, 25(21), 2784–2796. https://doi.
org/10.1097/00007632-200011010-00011.

Waddell, G., Feder, G. & Lewis, M. (1997). Systematic reviews of bed rest and ad-
vice to stay active for acute low back pain. British journal of general practice : the 
journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 47(423), 647–652. https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9474831/.

Waongenngarm, P., Areerak, K. & Janwantanakul, P. (2018). The effects of breaks 
on low back pain, discomfort, and work productivity in office workers: A systematic 
review of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. Applied Ergonomics, 
68, 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.12.003.

https://www.physio-pedia.com/Oswestry_Disability_Index#cite_note-4
https://www.physio-pedia.com/Oswestry_Disability_Index#cite_note-4
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032319
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.08.040
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.08.040
https://patient.info/bones-joints-muscles/back-and-spine-pain/lower-back-pain
https://patient.info/bones-joints-muscles/back-and-spine-pain/lower-back-pain
https://doi.org/10.22540/JFSF-09-267
https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200011010-00011
https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200011010-00011
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9474831/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9474831/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.12.003

	_Hlk199018774
	_heading=h.r98mwvimp51m
	_heading=h.c5xxoosmfb0
	_heading=h.ra86sy5uuqai
	_heading=h.8hg10f48zyt5
	_heading=h.pqcczyy4e2pg
	_heading=h.4m30s8od8tub
	_heading=h.pg55g25d2nd
	_heading=h.a8srg11uwxxg
	_heading=h.4i4blvd56uvj
	_heading=h.req9hpvv0x60
	_Hlk201317441
	_Hlk60736358
	_Hlk62755260
	_Hlk62755317
	_Hlk62755341
	_Hlk175663888
	_Hlk203037924
	_Hlk207193304

