Sean Gallagher1. 1. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, PO Box 18070, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0070, USA. sfg9@cdc.gov
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The vast majority of ergonomics research has addressed the demands of work in standing or sitting postures, and understandably so. However, many workers (e.g., underground miners, aircraft baggage handlers, plumbers, agricultural workers, mechanics, and others) are often required to adopt postures such as kneeling, stooping, squatting, or lying down for significant periods of the workday. METHOD: A literature search was performed using the ISI Web of Science database (for years 1980-2004). Articles retrieved from this search were evaluated in terms of relevance to assessing physical capabilities of workers in these postures and/or the musculoskeletal epidemiology associated with these postures. RESULTS: Work in unusual and restricted postures was associated with significantly higher rates of musculoskeletal complaints compared to workers not adopting these postures in epidemiology studies (Odds Ratios ranging from 1.13 to 13). Some studies suggested a dose-response relationship, with longer exposures leading to increased musculoskeletal complaints. Physical strength and psychophysical lifting capacity vary significantly as unusual or restricted postures are adopted, with lower lifting capacities evident in the kneeling, squatting, and lying positions. CONCLUSIONS: Workers who adopt unusual or restricted postures appear to be at higher risk of musculoskeletal complaints and often exhibit reduced strength and lifting capacity. Research needs in this area include improved exposure assessment tools, studies of intervention effectiveness, adaptations of the body in response of work in unusual postures, and elucidation of relevant injury pathways. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: Workers who adopt unusual or restricted postures in their work often experience higher musculoskeletal injury rates. If awkward postures cannot be eliminated in the workplace, jobs should be designed in accordance with the reduced strength and lifting capabilities observed in these postures.
INTRODUCTION: The vast majority of ergonomics research has addressed the demands of work in standing or sitting postures, and understandably so. However, many workers (e.g., underground miners, aircraft baggage handlers, plumbers, agricultural workers, mechanics, and others) are often required to adopt postures such as kneeling, stooping, squatting, or lying down for significant periods of the workday. METHOD: A literature search was performed using the ISI Web of Science database (for years 1980-2004). Articles retrieved from this search were evaluated in terms of relevance to assessing physical capabilities of workers in these postures and/or the musculoskeletal epidemiology associated with these postures. RESULTS: Work in unusual and restricted postures was associated with significantly higher rates of musculoskeletal complaints compared to workers not adopting these postures in epidemiology studies (Odds Ratios ranging from 1.13 to 13). Some studies suggested a dose-response relationship, with longer exposures leading to increased musculoskeletal complaints. Physical strength and psychophysical lifting capacity vary significantly as unusual or restricted postures are adopted, with lower lifting capacities evident in the kneeling, squatting, and lying positions. CONCLUSIONS: Workers who adopt unusual or restricted postures appear to be at higher risk of musculoskeletal complaints and often exhibit reduced strength and lifting capacity. Research needs in this area include improved exposure assessment tools, studies of intervention effectiveness, adaptations of the body in response of work in unusual postures, and elucidation of relevant injury pathways. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: Workers who adopt unusual or restricted postures in their work often experience higher musculoskeletal injury rates. If awkward postures cannot be eliminated in the workplace, jobs should be designed in accordance with the reduced strength and lifting capabilities observed in these postures.
Authors: Lauren E Griffith; Harry S Shannon; Richard P Wells; Stephen D Walter; Donald C Cole; Pierre Côté; John Frank; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Lacey E Langlois Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Lars-Kristian Lunde; Markus Koch; Stein Knardahl; Morten Wærsted; Svend Erik Mathiassen; Mikael Forsman; Andreas Holtermann; Kaj Bo Veiersted Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Madiha Ijaz; Muhammad Akram; Sajid Rashid Ahmad; Kamran Mirza; Falaq Ali Nadeem; Steven M Thygerson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Charlotte Brauer; Sigurd Mikkelsen; Ellen Bøtker Pedersen; Karina Lauenborg Møller; Erik Bruun Simonsen; Henrik Koblauch; Tine Alkjær; Karin Helweg-Larsen; Lau Caspar Thygesen Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Sultan Ayoub Meo; Zaid Fahad Alsaaran; Moayad Khalid Alshehri; Mohammed Azam Khashougji; Abdul Aziz Zayed Almeterk; Saif Fraj Almutairi; Saad Fahad Alsaeed Journal: Pak J Med Sci Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 1.088