A participatory approach to the study of lifting demands and musculoskeletal symptoms among Hong Kong workers

Perceived Risk of Low-Back Injury Among Four Occupations

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the perception of risk of low-back injury of individuals from four groups: office/administrative employees, dental workers (dentists/dental hygienists), firefighters, and undergraduate students.

BACKGROUND

The concept of worker's perception of injury risk has been used to set safe material-handling limits and to determine compliance with health and safety regulations but has not been used to identify perceptual differences among occupations or potential deficiencies in risk awareness.

METHOD

Participants (N = 232) were presented with eight images of different low-back postures/tasks and were required to rate their perceived magnitude of low-back risk on a scale from 0 (no risk) to 10 (extreme risk).

RESULTS

Office/administrative and dental workers rated postures higher than firefighters and students. Individuals from all groups perceived kyphotic postures as having a higher low-back risk than lordotic postures. Further, office and dental workers, compared to firefighters and students, perceived sitting postures to have a relatively higher level of risk, likely due to these postures being typically adopted by these individuals at work. No relationship between previous low-back pain and risk rating was observed in this study.

CONCLUSION

Low-back injury risk perception varies between occupations/groups and may be a result of different exposures.

APPLICATION

The results of this study can potentially be used to implement occupation-specific training programs to ensure that the scientific research regarding low-back injuries is being properly conveyed to employees across all sectors.

Low back pain among personal care workers in an old age home: work-related and individual factors

This cross-sectional study explored the work-related and individual factors that contributed to the occurrence of low back pain and affected activities of 36 personal care workers at an old age home in Hong Kong. The study was divided into four parts: (1) a questionnaire documenting workload exposure factors; (2) a musculoskeletal symptoms survey documenting the prevalence of low back pain in this group of workers; (3) a worksite evaluation focusing on personal care workers' work postures and the work environment; and (4) an evaluation of physical fitness and lifting capacities of personal care workers. Univariate followed by multiple logistic regression analyses were used to identify the risk factors associated with low back pain that affected work activities. The results revealed that low back pain was associated with the perceived physical demands of cleaning tasks (odds ratio [OR] = 7.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.35-39.35, p < .05), perceived demands of awkward sustained back (OR = 4.46, CI = 0.86-22.97, p = .074) and neck (OR = 0.18, CI = 0.04-0.81, p < .05) postures, and thermal stress at work (OR = 49.80, CI = 0.70-3541.79, p = .072). The results of the current study indicated that the work environment contributed to low back pain at work. Workers perceived that exertion in workplaces has a role in assessing workplace risk. To avoid progression of low back pain in the workplace, work adjustment or modification should be considered when workers report high levels of perceived exertion at work.

Low Back Pain among Personal Care Workers in an Old Age Home

This cross-sectional study explored the work-related and individual factors that contributed to the occurrence of low back pain and affected activities of 36 personal care workers at an old age home in Hong Kong. The study was divided into four parts: (1) a questionnaire documenting workload exposure factors; (2) a musculoskeletal symptoms survey documenting the prevalence of low back pain in this group of workers; (3) a worksite evaluation focusing on personal care workers' work postures and the work environment; and (4) an evaluation of physical fitness and lifting capacities of personal care workers. Univariate followed by multiple logistic regression analyses were used to identify the risk factors associated with low back pain that affected work activities. The results revealed that low back pain was associated with the perceived physical demands of cleaning tasks (odds ratio [OR] = 7.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.35–39.35, p < .05), perceived demands of awkward sustained back (OR = 4.46, CI = 0.86–22.97, p = .074) and neck (OR = 0.18, CI = 0.04–0.81, p < .05) postures, and thermal stress at work (OR = 49.80, CI = 0.70–3541.79, p = .072). The results of the current study indicated that the work environment contributed to low back pain at work. Workers perceived that exertion in workplaces has a role in assessing workplace risk. To avoid progression of low back pain in the workplace, work adjustment or modification should be considered when workers report high levels of perceived exertion at work.

WHEN IS IT SAFE TO MANUALLY LIFT A PATIENT?

In 1994 the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) released the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation-an ergonomics assessment tool that can be used to calculate the recommended weight limit for two-handed manual-lifting tasks. However, NIOSH excluded assessment of patient-handling tasks from the uses of the revised equation, arguing that such tasks involve too many variables. The equation in fact can be used to calculate a recommended weight limit for a limited range of patient-handling tasks in which the patient is cooperative and unlikely to move suddenly during the task. In general, the revised equation yields a recommended 35-lb. maximum weight limit for use in patient-handling tasks. When weight to be lifted exceeds this limit, assistive devices should be used.

Perceived effort and low back pain in non-emergency ambulance workers: implications for rehabilitation

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to explore factors associated with low back pain (LBP) that required treatment from health care provider among non-emergency ambulance transfer workers.

METHOD

A cross-sectional study was conducted to 38 workers of a major hospital in Hong Kong. The influences of four categories of risk factors (personal, physical, psychosocial, and exposure factors) in the prevalence of LBP were investigated by objective measurement and self-reported questionnaires. A modified Nordic musculoskeletal symptoms survey and sick leave record were used to document the prevalence of LBP. Univariate analyses followed by multiple logistic regression analyses were used to explore the risk factors associated with LBP cases.

RESULTS

The results revealed that LBP was associated with age (OR=0.75, CI=0.56-1.00, P < 0.05), perceived effort (OR=7.95, CI=1.46-43.27, P < 0.05), job satisfaction (OR=4.18 CI=1.42-12.33, P < 0.01), and flexor peak torque at 120 degrees /s (OR=1.09 CI= 0.99-1.19, P=0.07).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that workers' perceived exertion has an valuable role in assessing risk at this workplace. A high perceived exertion at work can signal the need for work adjustment or modification to avoid progression of low back disorder to persistent pain or intense pain. The effects of work adjustment or modification in affected workers needs to be systematically investigated.

Musculoskeletal pain in ragpickers in a southern city in Brazil

BACKGROUND

Ragpickers are informal workers who collect recyclable materials to earn a small wage. Their life and working conditions are extremely precarious. The ergonomic hazards and musculoskeletal pain in a sample of ragpickers in Pelotas, a city in southern Brazil are examined.

METHODS

Two comparison groups were available: a matched sample of non-ragpickers from the same poor neighborhoods, and a random sample of the general population of the city. The cross-sectional study gathered data by interview on 990 individuals in 2004. Musculoskeletal pain was assessed using the Standardized Nordic Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Ragpickers reported higher prevalences for most awkward postures and ergonomic exposures compared to neighbors with other demanding manual jobs. The prevalence within the last 12 months of low back pain (LBP), lower extremity pain (LEP), and upper extremity pain (UEP) among ragpickers were 49.2%, 45.1%, and 34.9%, respectively; levels similar to those reported by neighborhood controls. Both ragpickers and non-ragpickers reported considerably higher ergonomic exposures, and more prevalent LBP, than the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

Ragpickers experience many occupational hazards and ergonomic stressors. Their overall prevalence of musculoskeletal pain was similar to a comparison group with other physically demanding manual jobs. For LBP, this prevalence was substantially higher (49% vs. 35%) than in the general population.