Literature DB >> 20721968

The estimated national burden of physical ergonomic hazards among US workers.

Sangwoo Tak1, Geoffrey M Calvert.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To estimate the national burden of physical ergonomic hazards among working adults in the US.
METHODS: We estimated the population prevalence of and the total number of workers who are exposed to physical ergonomic hazards, such as vibration, working in cramped space, kneeling, body bending or twisting, climbing, and repetitive motions using Occupational Information Network (O*NET) data and the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) stratified by occupation title.
RESULTS: Repetitive motion was the most prevalent of all ergonomic hazards (27% of US workers are estimated to be exposed continually). Bending or twisting of the body more than half their time at work was also common, involving over 32 million US workers (25% of US workforce). Kneeling, crouching, stooping, or crawling was another ergonomic hazard that 14 million US workers perform more than half their time at work. Almost 4 million workers climb ladders, scaffolds, poles, etc. for more than half their time at work. We estimate that over 13 million workers (10% of US workforce) were exposed to cramped workspace that requires getting into awkward positions every day. Finally, about 3.5 million workers (2.7% of US workforce) were estimated to be exposed to whole body vibration every day.
CONCLUSION: A large portion of the US work force is exposed to ergonomic hazards known to be associated with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The occupations with the highest prevalence of each ergonomic hazard may be deserving of prompt efforts toward prevention of MSDs.
Copyright © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20721968     DOI: 10.1002/ajim.20883

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ind Med        ISSN: 0271-3586            Impact factor:   2.214


  7 in total

1.  Effectiveness of shoe covers for bioexclusion within an animal facility.

Authors:  Judy M Hickman-Davis; Mackenzie L Nicolaus; Joann M Petty; Dianne M Harrison; Valerie K Bergdall
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.232

2.  Relating Older Workers' Injuries to the Mismatch Between Physical Ability and Job Demands.

Authors:  Laura A Fraade-Blanar; Jeanne M Sears; Kwun Chuen G Chan; Hilaire J Thompson; Paul K Crane; Beth E Ebel
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 2.162

3.  Effect of systematic ergonomic hazard identification and control implementation on musculoskeletal disorder and injury risk.

Authors:  Linda F Cantley; Oyebode A Taiwo; Deron Galusha; Russell Barbour; Martin D Slade; Baylah Tessier-Sherman; Mark R Cullen
Journal:  Scand J Work Environ Health       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 5.024

4.  Health-related employer support, recurring pain, and direct insurance costs for a self-insured employer.

Authors:  Jessica A R Williams
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  Time trends in musculoskeletal disorders attributed to work exposures in Ontario using three independent data sources, 2004-2011.

Authors:  Cameron A Mustard; Andrea Chambers; Selahadin Ibrahim; Jacob Etches; Peter Smith
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 4.402

6.  Frequent Exertion and Frequent Standing at Work, by Industry and Occupation Group - United States, 2015.

Authors:  Taylor M Shockey; Sara E Luckhaupt; Matthew R Groenewold; Ming-Lun Lu
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 17.586

7.  The burden of low back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and gout and their respective attributable risk factors in Brazil: results of the GBD 2017 study.

Authors:  Juliana Wolf; Elisabeth Barboza França; Ada Ávila Assunção
Journal:  Rev Soc Bras Med Trop       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 1.581

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.