Objective: Patients with low back pain manifest minimal diaphragmatic displacement during breathing, and improvement in this displacement may result in low back pain alleviation.

Method: This study included 27 healthy young male and female participants. Diaphragmatic movement was visualized using magnetic resonance imaging under three conditions of lumbar spine angles (intermediate, lordotic, and kyphotic positions) and two breathing conditions (quiet and deep breathing). Then, displacements of the anterior, middle, and posterior parts of the diaphragm were calculated and compared.

Result: During quiet breathing, the displacement of the anterior part of the diaphragm was remarkably greater in the kyphotic position, and in the middle and posterior positions, the intermediate and kyphotic positions were considerably larger than the lordotic position. During deep breathing, the amount of displacement was remarkably greater in the intermediate and kyphotic positions than in the lordotic position for the anterior, middle, and posterior diaphragms.

Conclusion: It was suggested that passive placement of the lumbar spine in a lordotic position interferes with diaphragmatic movement during breathing. Diaphragmatic training in the supine position may be more effective if performed in the neutral or kyphotic position, rather than in the lumbar lordotic position.

Objective: This study examined the relationship between locomotive syndrome (LS) and presenteeism in hospital employees.

Methods: This study included 329 hospital employees (67 men and 262 women, with an average age of 39.4 years). LS risk tests, including the stand-up test, the 2-step test, and the 25-question geriatric locomotive function scale (GFLS-25) were used to assess LS. The Work Functioning Impairment Scale was used to assess presenteeism. The relationship between LS and presenteeism was assessed using χ² tests and logistic regression analysis.

Results: Among LS risk tests, only GFLS-25 scores revealed a significant relationship with the presence of presenteeism (p<0.001), with logistic regression revealing that GFLS-25 was associated with presenteeism (odds ratio: 3.50, 95%CI: 1.93–6.51) even after adjustment for gender, age, body mass index, and profession. In addition, the GLFS-25 subscales concerning “activities of daily living” and “psychological anxiety” was associated with presenteeism independently.

Conclusions: The results of this study, especially the GFLS-25 scores, revealed the relationships between LS and presenteeism among hospital employees. It implied that the decline in subjectively assessed mobility, such as difficulty in daily activities and anxiety about future motor function, was associated with a reduced ability to perform daily work.