Should data on gender and ethnicity inform ergonomics interventions? Lessons from four case studies

Ergonomists intervene to improve work for all workers and adapt jobs to a range of worker characteristics. But their mandate rarely includes explicit attention to the distribution of worker demographics, to divisions among workers, or to discrimination on the basis of sex/gender or racialisation. A decades-long collaboration between ergonomists and the women's committees of three union confederations in Québec, Canada led to several instances where ergonomists had to confront situations involving sexism or racism, not foreseen during their training. This article will explore four problematic situations and suggest solutions, including paying more attention to teamwork, considering gender during ergonomics training, and developing a code of practice for ergonomics interventions.Practitioner summary: Workplace inequities related to sex/gender, racialisation and other sources of social inequity can affect job performance and workers' health. As such, do ergonomists need to consider them during an intervention? How? We analyse four situations encountered during interventions and suggest more attention to understanding workplace dynamics and promoting team function.

Integration of sex and gender in interventions by students in ergonomics

This article aims to analyse the integration of sex and gender (s/g) by ergonomics students during their internship at the master's degree level, following training sessions on s/g issues in the workplace. This exploratory research used a descriptive mixed-methods design, encompassing evaluation of students' intention to use the content from the training (n = 13 students), and a multiple case study (n = 5 ergonomics interventions). The results show that while students found the training relevant, they only minimally integrated s/g in their interventions and when they did, it was primarily from an anthropometric and physiological perspective. In addition to discussing the training format limitations, the article discusses barriers to this integration: combining learning about s/g issues with learning about activity analysis is challenging; employers' and workers' organisations may be reluctant to approach s/g issues; and it is difficult for an ergonomist to integrate these issues when the employer's request does not specify it.Practitioner summary: This article aims to analyse the integration of s/g by ergonomics students during their internships. Findings show that they only minimally considered s/g. The discussion examines s/g training, organisational obstacles to inclusion of s/g during interventions, and how ergonomists can consider s/g in their practice.

Does participatory ergonomics reduce musculoskeletal pain in sonographers? A mixed methods study

Introduction

Sonographers in the Western New South Wales Local Health District (WNSWLHD) reported a musculoskeletal pain prevalence rate of 95%. Participatory ergonomics, where workers are consulted about improving work conditions, was utilised to identify work-related musculoskeletal disorder (WMSD) risks and potential solutions. The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of WMSD in a cohort of sonographers before and after implementation of ergonomic changes that were driven by recommendations from a participatory ergonomics approach.

Methods

This observational mixed methods study analysed the impact of participatory ergonomic-driven interventions on changes on musculoskeletal pain in a cohort of sonographers employed within the WNSWLHD. A retrospective analysis of 10 sonographer WMSD pain surveys over five sites was completed, along with semi-structured interviews regarding which interventions were perceived as useful, which interventions were not implemented and any barriers to implementation.

Results

Installation of patient monitors, use of ergonomic scanning techniques and job rotation were perceived as responsible for decreased musculoskeletal pain. Taking lunch breaks and microbreaks, use of antifatigue mats and having two sonographers perform mobile exams were not fully implemented. No interventions were perceived as responsible for increased pain.

Conclusion

This small study provides preliminary evidence that a participatory ergonomics approach facilitated identification of occupation and site-specific risks for WMSD in the WNSWLHD, allowing implementation of ergonomic changes to be tailored to the workplace, resulting in a safer work environment for sonographers.

The effectiveness of ergonomics interventions in reducing upper limb work-related musculoskeletal pain and dysfunction in sonographers, surgeons and dentists: a systematic review

The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the effects of ergonomics interventions on work-related upper limb musculoskeletal pain and dysfunction, and on productivity in sonographers, surgeons and dentists. A total of 31 studies were included. All studies reported effects on upper limb pain. Nine studies reported effects on dysfunction and only two studies reported effects on productivity. Moderately strong evidence in reducing upper limb pain was found for instigation of microbreaks into long duration surgical procedures, and the use of wider, lighter handles in dental instruments. Moderate evidence was also found for use of prismatic glasses and favourable positioning in reducing upper limb pain. Weak, inconsistent or no evidence was found for all other ergonomics interventions in reducing upper limb pain and dysfunction and increasing productivity. The lack of high quality research, particularly in sonographers and in the outcome of productivity, should be addressed. Practitioner summary: This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of ergonomics interventions on upper limb pain, dysfunction and productivity in sonographers, dentists and surgeons. Instigation of microbreaks during long duration procedures and the use of wider, lighter instrument handles were most effective in reducing upper limb work-related pain. Abbreviations: ANOVA: analysis of variance; CLS: conventional laparoscopic surgery; DMAIC: define, measure, analyze, improve and control; GRADE: grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations; HD: high definition; PRISMA: preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses; PROSPERO: The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; RCT: randomised control trial; SILS: single incision laparoscopic surgery; VITOM: video telescopic operative microscope; WNSWLHD: Western New South Wales Local Health District; WMSD: work related musculoskeletal disorder.