A different approach for the ergonomic evaluation of pushing and pulling in practice

Abstract Recent epidemiological studies show that pushing and pulling increase the risks of shoulder complaints and not necessarily of low back complaints. Moreover, the magnitude of the exerted hand forces during pushing and pulling is poorly related to the magnitude of the mechanical loading of the low back and the shoulder. In light of that, this paper combines results of several studies to present an approach for evaluating not only the exerted hand forces, but also the low back and shoulder load during pushing and pulling in practice. The approach specifies, based on scientific evidence, that (1) in order to validly obtain exposure (frequency and duration) to pushing and pulling, 10 workers should be observed during eight periods of 30 min; (2) how the exerted hand forces and the load of the low back and shoulder can be estimated in practice based solemnly on the weight of the object, one-handed or two-handed pushing or pulling, and the height of the handle; and finally, (3) how these outcomes can be evaluated in combination with existing guidelines regarding exerted hand forces, compression forces on the low back and the moments at the shoulder. Two cases will be presented here to illustrate the application of the approach. Relevance to industry The presented approach is the first to offer practitioners a fairly simple method for the ergonomic evaluation of pushing and pulling carts and four-wheeled containers in practice, especially as regarding the shoulder load.

Usefulness and feasibility of comprehensive and less comprehensive vocational rehabilitation for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain:perspectives from patients, professionals, and managers

Purpose: To explore the usefulness and feasibility of a comprehensive vocational rehabilitation (C-VR) program and less comprehensive (LC-VR) program for workers on sick leave due to chronic musculoskeletal pain, from the perspective of patients, professionals, and managers.Materials and methods: Semi-structured interviews were held with patients, professionals, and managers. Using topic lists, participants were questioned about barriers to and facilitators of the usefulness and feasibility of C-VR and LC-VR. Thirty interviews were conducted with thirteen patients (n = 6 C-VR, n = 7 LC-VR), eight professionals, and nine managers. All interviews were transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed by systematic text condensation using inductive thematic analysis.Results: Three themes emerged for usefulness ("patient factors," "content," "dosage") and six themes emerged for feasibility ("satisfaction," "intention to continue use," "perceived appropriateness," "positive/negative effects on target participants," "factors affecting implementation ease or difficulty," "adaptations"). The patients reported that both programs were feasible and generally useful. The professionals preferred working with the C-VR, although they disliked the fixed and uniform character of the program. They also mentioned that this program is too extensive for some patients, and that the latter would probably benefit from the LC-VR program. Despite their positive intentions, the managers stated that due to the Dutch healthcare system, implementation of the LC-VR program would be financially unfeasible.Conclusions: The main conclusion of this study is that it is not useful to have one VR program for all patients with CMP and reduced work participation, and that flexible and tailored-based VR are warranted.Implications for rehabilitationBoth comprehensive and less comprehensive vocational rehabilitation are deemed useful for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain and reduced work participation. Particular patient factors, for instance information uptake, discipline, willingness to change, duration of complaints, movement anxiety, obstructing thoughts, and willingness to return to work might guide the right program for the right patient.Both comprehensive and less comprehensive vocational rehabilitation are deemed feasible in practice. However, factors such as center logistic (schemes, rooms, professionals available) and country-specific healthcare insurance and sickness compensation systems should foster the implementation of less comprehensive programs

Test-Retest Reliability, Agreement and Responsiveness of Productivity Loss (iPCQ-VR) and Healthcare Utilization (TiCP-VR) Questionnaires for Sick Workers with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to assess test-retest reliability, agreement, and responsiveness of questionnaires on productivity loss (iPCQ-VR) and healthcare utilization (TiCP-VR) for sick-listed workers with chronic musculoskeletal pain who were referred to vocational rehabilitation. Methods Test-retest reliability and agreement was assessed with a 2-week interval. Responsiveness was assessed at discharge after a 15-week vocational rehabilitation (VR) program. Data was obtained from six Dutch VR centers. Test-retest reliability was determined with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen's kappa. Agreement was determined by Standard Error of Measurement (SEM), smallest detectable changes (on group and individual level), and percentage observed, positive and negative agreement. Responsiveness was determined with area under the curve (AUC) obtained from receiver operation characteristic (ROC). Results A sample of 52 participants on test-retest reliability and agreement, and a sample of 223 on responsiveness were included in the analysis. Productivity loss (iPCQ-VR): ICCs ranged from 0.52 to 0.90, kappa ranged from 0.42 to 0.96, and AUC ranged from 0.55 to 0.86. Healthcare utilization (TiCP-VR): ICC was 0.81, and kappa values of the single healthcare utilization items ranged from 0.11 to 1.00. Conclusions The iPCQ-VR showed good measurement properties on working status, number of hours working per week and long-term sick leave, and low measurement properties on short-term sick leave and presenteeism. The TiCP-VR showed adequate reliability on all healthcare utilization items together and medication use, but showed low measurement properties on the single healthcare utilization items

Analyse des PI3K-Signalwegs bei der Entstehung des duktalen Pankreaskarzinoms

Job rotation is often advocated to reduce workload, but its efficacy has seldom been investigated. The aim of this study is to compare the work demands, workload, and recovery among truck driving, refuse collecting, and rotating between these two jobs, between days and during the day. Three teams of 3 employees each participated in this study. Work demands were assessed by systematic observation of tasks and activities. Workload was quantified by means of heart rate, oxygen uptake, subjective ratings, and urinary excretion rates of catecholamines. Recovery was quantified by excretion rates of catecholamines after work. Job rotation between driving and collecting is an effective measure to reduce physical workload as compared with collecting only and to decrease mental workload as compared with driving only. However, job rotation resulted. in increased physical workload as compared with driving only. Job rotation did not increase mental workload as compared with collecting only. No effects were seen on recovery. No differences were found between rotating between days and during the day. Actual or potential applications of this research include the recommendation that before job rotation is introduced, its efficacy be determined in terms of well-chosen workload measures because a reduction in work demands does not directly imply a reduction in workload. Therefore, job rotation might be less effective than expecte

Quality of life and illness perception in working and sick-listed chronic RSI patients

OBJECTIVE: To study differences between working and sick-listed chronic repetitive strain injury (RSI) patients in the Netherlands with respect to indices of quality of life and illness perception. METHODS: In a cross-sectional design, one questionnaire was sent to all 3,250 members of the national RSI patient association. For descriptive purposes, demographics, work status and complaint-related variables such as severity, type, duration, and extent of complaints were asked for. Indices of quality of life were assessed through seven SF-36 subscales (physical (role) functioning, emotional role functioning, social functioning, pain, mental health and vitality). A work-ability estimate and VAS scales were used to assess complaint-related decrease in quality of life. Illness perception was assessed through the brief illness perception questionnaire (IPQ-B). Working patients and sick-listed patients were identified. Tests between the two independent groups were performed and P-values < 0.01 were considered significant. RESULTS: Data from 1,121 questionnaires were used. Two-thirds of the respondents worked and one-third were sick-listed. Average duration of complaints was over 5 years in both groups. The sick-listed patients reported significantly more severe and extensive complaints than did the working patients. In addition, sick-listed patients reported significantly poorer mental health, physical (role) functioning, emotional role functioning, pain, vitality, and work-ability. With respect to illness perception, both groups showed the same concerns about their complaints, but sick-listed patients had significantly more distorted perceptions in their emotional response, identity, treatment control, personal control, timeline, and life consequences. Complaint-related decrease in quality of life was 31% in the working patients and 49% in the sick-listed patients. CONCLUSION: The study found a greater number and severe complaints among sick-listed chronic RSI patients and a considerably decreased quality of life because of their complaints. These findings may allow for a better treatment focus in the futur

Effect of Functional Capacity Evaluation information on the judgment of physicians about physical work ability in the context of disability claims

Purpose To test whether Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) information lead insurance physicians (IPs) to change their judgment about the physical work ability of claimants with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Methods Twenty-seven IPs scored twice the physical work ability of two claimants for 12 specified activities, using a visual analogue scale. One claimant performed an FCE, the other served as a control. Outcome measure was the difference between experimental and control group in number of shifts in the physical work ability for the total of 12 specified activities. Results The IPs changed their judgment about the work ability 141 times when using FCE information compared to 102 times when not using this information (P-value = 0.001), both in the direction of more and less ability. Conclusions The IPs change their judgment of the physical work ability of claimants with MSDs in the context of disability claim procedures more often when FCE information is provide

Is Workstyle a Mediating Factor for Pain in the Upper Extremity Over Time?

Introduction Upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders influence workers’ quality of life. Workstyle may be one factor to deal with in workers with pain in the upper extremity. The objective of this study was to determine if workstyle is a mediating factor for upper extremity pain in a changing work environment of office workers over time. Methods Office workers with upper extremity pain filled out a Workstyle questionnaire (WSF) at baseline (n = 110). After 8 and 12 months follow-up assessment took place. Participants were divided into a good and an adverse workstyle group at baseline. The presence of upper extremity pain in both groups was calculated and relative risks were determined. Chi-square tests were used. Results Eight months after baseline, 80% of the adverse and 45% of the good workstyle group reported pain. The relative risk (RR) of having upper extremity pain for the adverse compared to the good workstyle group was 1.8 (95% CI 1.08–2.86) (P = 0.055). Twelve months after baseline, upper extremity pain was more often presented in the adverse workstyle compared to the good workstyle group (RR = 3.0, (95% CI 1.76–5.11), P = 0.003). Twelve months after baseline, 100% of the adverse workstyle group and 33% of the good workstyle group reported pain in the upper extremity. Conclusion Workstyle seems to be a mediating factor for upper extremity pain in office workers in a changing work environment. It is recommended to assess workstyle among office workers with upper extremity pain, and to include workstyle behaviour in treatments