Reliability and validity study of Persian modified version of MUSIC (musculoskeletal intervention center) – Norrtalje questionnaire

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a major health problem in the world. Self-reported questionnaires are a known method for estimating the prevalence of MSDs among the population. One of the studies concerning MSDs and their relation to work-related physical and psychosocial factors, as well as non-work-related factors, is the MUSIC-Norrtalje study in Sweden. In this study, the research group developed a questionnaire, which has been validated during its development process and is now considered a well-known instrument. The aim of this study is to validate the Persian version of this questionnaire.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The first step was to establish two expert panel groups in Iran and Sweden. The Focus Group Discussion (FGD) method was used to detect questionnaire face and content validity. To detect questionnaire reliability, we used the test-retest method.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Except for two items, all other questions that respondents had problems with in the focus group (20 of 297), had unclear translations; the ambiguity was related to the stem of the questions and the predicted answers were clear for the participants. The concepts of 'household/spare time' and 'physical activity in the workplace' were not understood by the participants of FGD; this has been solved by adding further descriptions to these phrases in the translation. In the test-retest study, the reliability coefficient was relatively high in most items (only 5 items out of 297 had an ICC or kappa below 0.7).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The findings from the present study provide evidence that the Persian version of the MUSIC questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument.</p

Perceived exertion, comfort and working technique in professional computer users and associations with the incidence of neck and upper extremity symptoms.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate whether perceived exertion, perceived comfort and working technique is associated with the incidence of neck and upper extremity symptoms among professional computer users. METHODS: At baseline a self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 853 participants from 46 different work sites (382 men and 471 women) who, at baseline, had been free from neck and upper extremity symptoms during the preceding month. Work-related exposures, individual factors, and symptoms from the neck and upper extremities were assessed. Observations of working technique were performed by ergonomists using an ergonomic checklist. Incidence data were collected by means of 10 monthly questionnaires, asking for information on the occurrence of neck, shoulder and arm/hand symptoms. Perceived exertion was rated on a modified Borg RPE scale ranging from 0 (very, very light) to 14 (very, very strenuous). Perceived comfort was rated on a 9-point scale ranging from -4 (very, very poor) to +4 (very, very good) in relation to the chair, computer screen, keyboard, and computer mouse. RESULTS: The median follow up time was 10.3 months. The incidence of symptoms from the neck, shoulders and arm/hands were 50, 24 and 34 cases per 100 person years, respectively.Higher perceived exertion in the neck, shoulder or arm/hands was associated with an increased risk of developing symptoms in the corresponding body region. Moreover, a dose-response relationship between the level of exertion and the risk of developing symptoms was recorded for all three regions. There was an association between low comfort and an increased risk for neck symptoms, but not for shoulder and arm/hand symptoms, although a trend towards such an association (not statistically significant) could be seen. Working technique was, in this study, not associated with the risk of developing symptoms in any of the investigated body regions. CONCLUSION: There was a strong association between high perceived exertion and the development of neck, shoulder, and arm/hand symptoms. Moreover, there was an association between poor perceived comfort and neck pain. Surveillance of computer users may include perceived exertion and comfort to target individuals at risk for neck and upper extremity symptoms

The influence of work-related exposures on the prognosis of neck/shoulder pain

To determine associations between work-related exposures and the prognosis of self-reported neck/shoulder pain. This prospective cohort study was based on 803 working subjects who reported neck/shoulder pain at baseline. The proportion of subjects who 5–6 years later were symptom-free was calculated. Data concerning work-related biomechanical, psychosocial, and organizational exposures were collected at baseline. The Cox regression analyses were used to calculate the relative chances (RC) of being symptom-free at the end of the study for single exposures, and also for up to three simultaneous work-related exposures. Adjustments were made for sex and age. Only 36% of the subjects were symptom-free 5–6 years later. The relative chance for being symptom-free at the end of the study was 1.32 (95% CI = 0.99–1.74) for subjects who were exposed to sitting ≥75% of the working time and 1.53 (95% CI = 1.02–2.29) for subjects who were exposed to job strain, i.e., the combination of high demands and low decision latitude. The relative chance of being symptom-free at the end of the study was 0.61 (95% CI = 0.40–0.94) for subjects with at least two out of three simultaneous biomechanical exposures at work; manual handling, working with the hands above shoulder level, and working with vibrating tools. In a heterogeneous population with moderate nonspecific neck/shoulder pain, sedentary work enhanced the chance of being symptom-free 5–6 years later, whereas simultaneous exposures to at least two of manual handling, working with hands above shoulder level and working with vibrating tools were associated with a lower chance of being symptom-free at the end of the study. This could imply that subjects with neck/shoulder pain should avoid such simultaneous exposures

Variation between seated and standing/walking postures among male and female call centre operators

Background: The dose and time-pattern of sitting has been suggested in public health research to be an important determinant of risk for developing a number of diseases, including cardiovascular disorders and diabetes. The aim of the present study was to assess the time-pattern of seated and standing/walking postures amongst male and female call centre operators, on the basis of whole-shift posture recordings, analysed and described by a number of novel variables describing posture variation. Methods: Seated vs. standing/walking was recorded using dichotomous inclinometers throughout an entire work shift for 43 male and 97 female call centre operators at 16 call centres. Data were analysed using an extensive set of variables describing occurrence of and switches between seated and standing/walking, posture similarity across the day, and compliance with standard recommendations for computer work. Results: The majority of the operators, both male and female, spent more than 80% of the shift in a seated posture with an average of 10.4 switches/hour between seated and standing/walking or vice versa. Females spent, on average, 11% of the day in periods of sustained sitting longer than 1 hour; males 4.6% (p = 0.013). Only 38% and 11% of the operators complied with standard recommendations of getting an uninterrupted break from seated posture of at least 5 or 10 minutes, respectively, within each hour of work. Two thirds of all investigated variables showed coefficients of variation between subjects above 0.5. Since work tasks and contractual break schedules were observed to be essentially similar across operators and across days, this indicates that sedentary behaviours differed substantially between individuals. Conclusions: The extensive occurrence of uninterrupted seated work indicates that efforts should be made at call centres - and probably in other settings in the office sector - to introduce more physical variation in terms of standing/walking periods during the work day. We suggest the metrics used in this study for quantifying variation in sedentary behaviour to be of interest even for other dichotomous exposures relevant to occupational and public health, for instance physical activity/inactivity