Musculoskeletal PainNCT07865143
Effects of a Four-Week Active Break Program on Musculoskeletal Pain and Spinal Mobility in Office Workers
A study testing Active Break in people with Musculoskeletal Pain and Flexibility, run by Julia Wegener at 1 site in Slovenia.
Trial summary
This study was designed as a two-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio. A total of 55 office workers were randomly allocated to an experimental group (n = 28) or a control group (n = 27). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Musculoskeletal Pain, Flexibility, Well Being
- What is being tested?
- Active Break
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 55 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSlovenia
- Study dates
- 29 Sep 2025to 10 Nov 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Office workers who spent at least five hours per day sitting and
- who had been employed in office based work for at least three years
- and are older than 18
Who cannot join
- ongoing participation in any form of treatment or physiotherapy,
- receipt of physiotherapeutic or other medical treatment within one month prior to study initiation,
- recent surgery,
- neurological diseases of the peripheral or central nervous system,
- cardiovascular disease,
- bone disease,
- pregnancy or breastfeeding, osteoporosis, and
- any condition limiting the ability to perform the exercise program. I
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Slovenia1 site
Univerza v Novem mestu, Fakulteta za zdravstvene vede
Ljubljana, Ljubljana, 1000
About this study
This study was designed as a two-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio. A total of 55 office workers were randomly allocated to an experimental group (n = 28) or a control group (n = 27). The experimental group participated in a four-week active break program, while the control group received no intervention. Participants in both groups were instructed to maintain their usual daily activities, ergonomic setups, and health routines throughout the study.
The study aimed to investigate the effects of a brief daily active break program on subjective musculoskeletal pain and spinal mobility in office workers. Assessments were conducted at baseline, after two weeks, and after four weeks to evaluate changes over the study period.
Read the detailed description
Previous research on workplace active breaks and microbreaks has primarily focused on subjective symptom questionnaires, with less emphasis on objective measurements of spinal range of motion. Furthermore, previously investigated programs have often involved activity sessions lasting ten minutes or longer, which may be difficult to incorporate into a typical working day. The present study examined whether a brief, once-daily active break program could produce measurable changes in subjective musculoskeletal pain and spinal mobility.
A total of 55 office workers were recruited through convenience sampling and randomly allocated to an experimental group (n = 28) or a control group (n = 27). The experimental group participated in the active break program for four weeks, whereas the control group received no intervention. Participants in both groups were instructed to maintain their usual daily activities, ergonomic setups, and health routines throughout the study.
Data collection included an online questionnaire and objective measurements of spinal mobility. All spinal mobility measurements were performed by a single blinded assessor. One measurement trial was conducted for each test, side, and assessment session, with values recorded to the nearest 0.1 cm. Repeated trials and averaging were not performed, and intra-rater reliability was not directly assessed.
To minimize potential immediate effects of exercise on spinal mobility measurements, participants in the experimental group were instructed to perform the active break only after the assessments scheduled for the second and third measurement sessions.
Daily activity behaviors were assessed using the Daily Activity Behaviors Questionnaire (DABQ), which evaluates sleep, sedentary behavior, light-intensity physical activity, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity during the preceding seven days. The questionnaire was completed through an online survey platform accessed using a QR code. Each participant was assigned a unique identification number to link questionnaire responses with objective measurements while maintaining participant anonymity.
Adherence to the intervention was monitored using a daily online log. Participants in the experimental group recorded both days on which the active break was completed and days on which the intervention was not completed.
The control group served as a comparison group for changes in spinal mobility over the four-week observation period without the active break intervention.
Institutional approval was obtained from all participating organizations before study initiation. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Information regarding study procedures, the voluntary nature of participation, and the right to withdraw at any time without providing a reason or experiencing negative consequences was provided before enrollment.
- Conditions
- Musculoskeletal Pain, Flexibility, Well Being
- Being tested
- Active Break
- Medical subject headings
- Musculoskeletal Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Active BreakOther
To ensure correct and safe execution of the exercises, the exercises were demonstrated and performed together with the participants during the initial active break, allowing them to master the techniques; in addition, they received a leaflet with written instructions, which further reduced the likelihood of incorrect performance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| No intervention group | No intervention | No intervention |
| Active break | Experimental | Active break Receives: Other: Active Break |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pain assessment
Pain assessment using Visual Analoge Scale; 0 = no pain, 10 = very painful
Measured: Pain was assessed at the beginning and at the end of the 4-week active break program.
Secondary outcomes (1)
Spinal mobility results
Lumbal flexion, lateral flexion to the left and lateral flexion to the right were messured
Measured: At the beginning, after 2 weeks and at the end of 4 week protocol
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Oct 2026
- Study start29 Sep 2025
- Primary completion24 Oct 2025
- Study completion10 Nov 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (10)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Musculoskeletal PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 55 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Julia Wegener
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Julia Wegener, Fakulteta za Zdravstvene Vede
- Investigators
- Julia Wegener, MSc Physiotherapy, Study director
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07865143
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- No. UNM 76/2025
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 22 Sep 2026
- Last updated
- 8 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Okezue OC, Anamezie TH, Nene JJ, Okwudili JD. Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders among Office Workers in Higher Education Institutions: A Cross-Sectional Study. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2020 Sep;30(5):715-724. doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v30i5.10.
PubMed 33911832Shariat A, Cleland JA, Danaee M, Kargarfard M, Sangelaji B, Tamrin SBM. Effects of stretching exercise training and ergonomic modifications on musculoskeletal discomforts of office workers: a randomized controlled trial. Braz J Phys Ther. 2018 Mar-Apr;22(2):144-153. doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2017.09.003. Epub 2017 Sep 6.
PubMed 28939263Fortun-Rabadan R, Jimenez-Sanchez C, Flores-Yaben O, Bellosta-Lopez P. Workplace physiotherapy for musculoskeletal pain-relief in office workers: A pilot study. J Educ Health Promot. 2021 Feb 27;10:75. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_888_20. eCollection 2021.
PubMed 34084822Holzgreve F, Fraeulin L, Haenel J, Schmidt H, Bader A, Frei M, Groneberg DA, Ohlendorf D, van Mark A. Office work and stretch training (OST) study: effects on the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases and gender differences: a non-randomised control study. BMJ Open. 2021 May 13;11(5):e044453. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044453.
PubMed 33986051Wongwilairat K, Buranruk O, Eungpinichpong W, Puntumetakul R, Kantharadussadee-Triamchaisri S. Muscle stretching with deep and slow breathing patterns: a pilot study for therapeutic development. J Complement Integr Med. 2018 Aug 22;16(2):/j/jcim.2019.16.issue-2/jcim-2017-0167/jcim-2017-0167.xml. doi: 10.1515/jcim-2017-0167.
PubMed 30133419Waongenngarm P, van der Beek AJ, Akkarakittichoke N, Janwantanakul P. Effects of an active break and postural shift intervention on preventing neck and low-back pain among high-risk office workers: a 3-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2021 May 1;47(4):306-317. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3949. Epub 2021 Apr 27.
PubMed 33906239Tunwattanapong P, Kongkasuwan R, Kuptniratsaikul V. The effectiveness of a neck and shoulder stretching exercise program among office workers with neck pain: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2016 Jan;30(1):64-72. doi: 10.1177/0269215515575747. Epub 2015 Mar 16.
PubMed 25780258Sondergaard KH, Olesen CG, Sondergaard EK, de Zee M, Madeleine P. The variability and complexity of sitting postural control are associated with discomfort. J Biomech. 2010 Jul 20;43(10):1997-2001. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.03.009.
PubMed 20399433Parthasarathi V, Ranganathan B. Effect of scheduled stretching exercises in reducing musculoskeletal disorder symptoms among software professionals. Work. 2026 May;84(1):87-94. doi: 10.1177/10519815251399665. Epub 2025 Dec 8.
PubMed 41359523Kett AR, Sichting F. Sedentary behaviour at work increases muscle stiffness of the back: Why roller massage has potential as an active break intervention. Appl Ergon. 2020 Jan;82:102947. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102947. Epub 2019 Sep 9.
PubMed 31514046
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effects of a Four-Week Active Break Program on Musculoskeletal Pain and Spinal Mobility in Office Workers
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07865143
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- No. UNM 76/2025
- Conditions
- Musculoskeletal Pain, Flexibility, Well Being
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 55 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Julia WegenerUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 29 Sep 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 24 Oct 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 10 Nov 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 8 Oct 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study was designed as a two-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio. A total of 55 office workers were randomly allocated to an experimental group (n = 28) or a control group (n = 27). The experimental group participated in a four-week active break program, while the control group received no intervention. Participants in both groups were instructed to maintain their usual daily activities, ergonomic setups, and health routines throughout the study.
The study aimed to investigate the effects of a brief daily active break program on subjective musculoskeletal pain and spinal mobility in office workers. Assessments were conducted at baseline, after two weeks, and after four weeks to evaluate changes over the study period.
Detailed description
Previous research on workplace active breaks and microbreaks has primarily focused on subjective symptom questionnaires, with less emphasis on objective measurements of spinal range of motion. Furthermore, previously investigated programs have often involved activity sessions lasting ten minutes or longer, which may be difficult to incorporate into a typical working day. The present study examined whether a brief, once-daily active break program could produce measurable changes in subjective musculoskeletal pain and spinal mobility.
A total of 55 office workers were recruited through convenience sampling and randomly allocated to an experimental group (n = 28) or a control group (n = 27). The experimental group participated in the active break program for four weeks, whereas the control group received no intervention. Participants in both groups were instructed to maintain their usual daily activities, ergonomic setups, and health routines throughout the study.
Data collection included an online questionnaire and objective measurements of spinal mobility. All spinal mobility measurements were performed by a single blinded assessor. One measurement trial was conducted for each test, side, and assessment session, with values recorded to the nearest 0.1 cm. Repeated trials and averaging were not performed, and intra-rater reliability was not directly assessed.
To minimize potential immediate effects of exercise on spinal mobility measurements, participants in the experimental group were instructed to perform the active break only after the assessments scheduled for the second and third measurement sessions.
Daily activity behaviors were assessed using the Daily Activity Behaviors Questionnaire (DABQ), which evaluates sleep, sedentary behavior, light-intensity physical activity, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity during the preceding seven days. The questionnaire was completed through an online survey platform accessed using a QR code. Each participant was assigned a unique identification number to link questionnaire responses with objective measurements while maintaining participant anonymity.
Adherence to the intervention was monitored using a daily online log. Participants in the experimental group recorded both days on which the active break was completed and days on which the intervention was not completed.
The control group served as a comparison group for changes in spinal mobility over the four-week observation period without the active break intervention.
Institutional approval was obtained from all participating organizations before study initiation. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Information regarding study procedures, the voluntary nature of participation, and the right to withdraw at any time without providing a reason or experiencing negative consequences was provided before enrollment.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind (participant, care provider, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| No intervention group | No intervention | –No intervention |
| Active break | Experimental | Other: Active BreakActive break |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Office workers who spent at least five hours per day sitting and
- who had been employed in office based work for at least three years
- and are older than 18
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- ongoing participation in any form of treatment or physiotherapy,
- receipt of physiotherapeutic or other medical treatment within one month prior to study initiation,
- recent surgery,
- neurological diseases of the peripheral or central nervous system,
- cardiovascular disease,
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Active BreakTo ensure correct and safe execution of the exercises, the exercises were demonstrated and performed together with the participants during the initial active break, allowing them to master the techniques; in addition, they received a leaflet with written instructions, which further reduced the likelihood of incorrect performance. | Other | Active break |
Primary outcome
Pain assessment
Time frame: Pain was assessed at the beginning and at the end of the 4-week active break program.
Pain assessment using Visual Analoge Scale; 0 = no pain, 10 = very painful
1 secondary outcome
Spinal mobility results
Time frame: At the beginning, after 2 weeks and at the end of 4 week protocol
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 Oct 2026.
- Background: PubMed 33911832Okezue OC, Anamezie TH, Nene JJ, Okwudili JD. Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders among Office Workers in Higher Education Institutions: A Cross-Sectional Study. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2020 Sep;30(5):715-724. doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v30i5.10.
- Background: PubMed 28939263Shariat A, Cleland JA, Danaee M, Kargarfard M, Sangelaji B, Tamrin SBM. Effects of stretching exercise training and ergonomic modifications on musculoskeletal discomforts of office workers: a randomized controlled trial. Braz J Phys Ther. 2018 Mar-Apr;22(2):144-153. doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2017.09.003. Epub 2017 Sep 6.
- Background: PubMed 34084822Fortun-Rabadan R, Jimenez-Sanchez C, Flores-Yaben O, Bellosta-Lopez P. Workplace physiotherapy for musculoskeletal pain-relief in office workers: A pilot study. J Educ Health Promot. 2021 Feb 27;10:75. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_888_20. eCollection 2021.
- Background: PubMed 33986051Holzgreve F, Fraeulin L, Haenel J, Schmidt H, Bader A, Frei M, Groneberg DA, Ohlendorf D, van Mark A. Office work and stretch training (OST) study: effects on the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases and gender differences: a non-randomised control study. BMJ Open. 2021 May 13;11(5):e044453. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044453.
- Background: PubMed 30133419Wongwilairat K, Buranruk O, Eungpinichpong W, Puntumetakul R, Kantharadussadee-Triamchaisri S. Muscle stretching with deep and slow breathing patterns: a pilot study for therapeutic development. J Complement Integr Med. 2018 Aug 22;16(2):/j/jcim.2019.16.issue-2/jcim-2017-0167/jcim-2017-0167.xml. doi: 10.1515/jcim-2017-0167.
- Background: PubMed 33906239Waongenngarm P, van der Beek AJ, Akkarakittichoke N, Janwantanakul P. Effects of an active break and postural shift intervention on preventing neck and low-back pain among high-risk office workers: a 3-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2021 May 1;47(4):306-317. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3949. Epub 2021 Apr 27.
- Background: PubMed 25780258Tunwattanapong P, Kongkasuwan R, Kuptniratsaikul V. The effectiveness of a neck and shoulder stretching exercise program among office workers with neck pain: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2016 Jan;30(1):64-72. doi: 10.1177/0269215515575747. Epub 2015 Mar 16.
- Background: PubMed 20399433Sondergaard KH, Olesen CG, Sondergaard EK, de Zee M, Madeleine P. The variability and complexity of sitting postural control are associated with discomfort. J Biomech. 2010 Jul 20;43(10):1997-2001. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.03.009.
- Background: PubMed 41359523Parthasarathi V, Ranganathan B. Effect of scheduled stretching exercises in reducing musculoskeletal disorder symptoms among software professionals. Work. 2026 May;84(1):87-94. doi: 10.1177/10519815251399665. Epub 2025 Dec 8.
- Background: PubMed 31514046Kett AR, Sichting F. Sedentary behaviour at work increases muscle stiffness of the back: Why roller massage has potential as an active break intervention. Appl Ergon. 2020 Jan;82:102947. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102947. Epub 2019 Sep 9.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Musculoskeletal Pain
Recruiting
Effects of Cervicothoracic Mobilization in Patients With Supraspinatus Tendinitis
Rotator Cuff Tendonitis
Recruiting
Effects of Telerehabilitation Versus Supervised Rehabilitation Protocol on Pain, Range of Motion and Functional Recovery in Patients With Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome.
Patello Femoral Pain Syndrome
Recruiting
Hybrid mHealth and Telerehabilitation vs Conventional Physiotherapy for Subacromial Pain Syndrome
Subacromial Pain Syndrome
Active, not recruiting
Objective Measurement of Pain Regulation in Individuals Who Have Received Internet-delivered Exposure-based Cognitive Behavior Therapy
Fibromyalgia
RecruitingPhase 4
Efficacy of Ketorolac for Postoperative Pain Management in Hip Arthroscopy
Femoracetabular Impingement, Hip Arthroscopy
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Julia Wegener, MSc Physiotherapy study director
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Active Break in people with Musculoskeletal Pain and Flexibility, run by Julia Wegener at 1 site in Slovenia.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Slovenia. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Pain assessment (time frame: Pain was assessed at the beginning and at the end of the 4-week active break program.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07865143, which also lists 10 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 8 Oct 2026.