Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract. Objectives: To develop a framework for evaluating the work related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs).
Participants: The proposed framework was tested on 15 jewellery manufacturing workers working at Chinchpokhli region in
Mumbai, India and on 15 students studying in a management institute of Mumbai, India.
Methods: The framework has been broken into three phases. Phase 1 Ergonomic-risk evaluation; Phase 2 Musculoskeletal
Disorders (MSD) evaluation and Phase 3 Clinical examination. Ergonomic-risk evaluation determines the relationship between
work relatedness and musculoskeletal disorders. Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSD) evaluation tries to assess the presence of
discomforts/disabilities in different body regions, through subjective evaluation tools. Ergonomic-risk evaluation involved QEC,
PLIBEL and posture analysis by RULA. Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSD) evaluation involved administration of self reported
questionnaires. Clinical examination involved muscle grading by a physiotherapist and back strength measurement.
Results: The framework suggested that ergonomic risk evaluation techniques, self reported body part questionnaires and physical
measurement of physiological/biomechanical transients may have a relationship and can be used for the evaluation of work related
musculoskeletal disorders.
Conclusion: The proposed integrative approach will help in developing stage wise intervention strategies for work related
musculoskeletal disorders.
Keywords: Framework, ergonomic-risk, clinical examination
1. Introduction
Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs)
have been widely acknowledged as a major part of occupational harm, resulting from the acute and cumulative exposure to physical task demands [8,33,37] and
are the most prevalent cause of lost time injuries and
illnesses in almost every industry and are the costliest
occupational disease [3,33].
Studies have identified that physical [14,41] psychosocial, organizational [5,14,24] and individual [2,
Address for correspondence: Wricha Mishra, National Institute
of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Vihar Lake, Mumbai 400 087,
India. Tel.: +91 9769393813; E-mail: m.wricha84@gmail.com.
1051-9815/12/$27.50 2012 IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
438
W. Mishra et al. / An integrative approach for evaluating work related musculoskeletal disorders
There are many tools available for assessing the impact of individual ergonomic risk factors on the causation of musculoskeletal disorders, but no single tool is
suitable for all purposes [38]. For example, tools employed by clinicians are predominantly used for identifying the pathological conditions. Similarly, occupational ergonomists use epidemiological tools (mainly
cross sectional and retrospective) to establish the role
of ergonomic risk factors on the development of work
related musculoskeletal disorders. Therefore, different groups of practitioners approach the problem differently resulting in different management/intervention
protocols which are often found to be inadequate. A
comprehensive framework using multiple tools to capture different aspects of work place would probably be
better way to assess the work related musculoskeletal
disorders [38].
There are several such frameworks available for diagnosing, treatment and management of the work related musculoskeletal disorders. Westlander [40] developed a logic framework to assess occupation specific
musculoskeletal disorders [40]. Shoaf et al. [36] proposed a work system model to evaluate how the complete spectrum of work demands (i.e. physical and mental demands, physical/social/organizational/individual
growth environment conditions) influence human effort [36]. But the model did not provide the relationship between risk factors and pathological conditions of musculoskeletal disorders. Cole et al. [9]
proposed a framework for evaluating field interventions that included strategies, activities, objectives and
metrics for outcomes using quantitative and qualitative methods [9]. But the framework was only meant
for computer intense office jobs. Human Tech developed Risk Priority Management model for diagnosing and management of musculoskeletal disorders predominantly based on work posture, force applied, frequency and duration of exposure mainly for short duration work activities. However, the intensity of discomforts cannot be effectively evaluated by this model [www.humantech.com/products/softwares/rpm dated on 10.9]. 2010. Stock et al. [37] proposed a model to estimate physical work demands taking into account the relationship between the results of physician
evaluation and ergonomic risk factors to describe the
work relatedness [37]. However, the model did not include evaluation methodology for major regions of the
body. In addition, the reliability and validity of these
approaches are not reported.
The evaluation and management of work related
musculoskeletal disorders needs to have a framework
W. Mishra et al. / An integrative approach for evaluating work related musculoskeletal disorders
439
440
W. Mishra et al. / An integrative approach for evaluating work related musculoskeletal disorders
W. Mishra et al. / An integrative approach for evaluating work related musculoskeletal disorders
441
Table 1
Depicting general information about subjects
Parameters
Age (years)
Height (cm)
Weight (kg)
BMI(Kg/m2 )
Students
Mean ( SD)
24.09 ( 2.45)
171.51 ( 5.54)
69.72 ( 13.65)
23.61 ( 3.97)
442
W. Mishra et al. / An integrative approach for evaluating work related musculoskeletal disorders
Fig. 3. This reveals the susceptible areas of body parts of both jewellery manufacturing workers and students.
4. Results
Results presented in Table 1 indicate that both the
groups were having similar body mass index, the mean
ages were 29.2 and 24.1 yrs for jewellery manufacturing workers and the students respectively.
4.1. Phase 1 Ergonomic risk evaluation
Results of QEC (Fig. 2) showed that the body regions
prone to ergonomic risk factors were neck, wrist /hand,
back and shoulders. The findings of PLIBEL (Fig. 3)
also showed that low back, neck, shoulder and upper
back and knee were the regions which were prone to
ergonomic risk factors.
Results of posture analysis using RULA are presented in Table 2. This showed that postural risks were higher in case of jewellery manufacturing workers. Further
analysis showed that problems were more in neck and
back.
Results presented in Table 2 and Figs 2 and 3 indicated that higher level of ergonomic risks were present
in jewellery manufacturing workers. Neck, shoulder,
hand, back and knee were susceptible to ergonomic
risks.
4.2. Phase 2 Musculoskeletal disorders evaluation
Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (Table 3)
showed major area of trouble were neck, right shoulder, upper back, low back, right elbow, right hand and
knees for the jewellery manufacturing workers. While
for students the major area of trouble was low back. The
reported troubles were significantly higher for neck,
right shoulders, upper back right elbow, low back and
knees for jewellery manufacturing workers. Frequency
of episodes of low back troubles (Table 4) of jewellery
manufacturing workers showed that about 50% of the
respondents had one or more episodes a week. While for
other body regions such responses were 16.16, 16.77,
4.16 for neck, shoulders and upper back respectively. The responses of the students indicated that they
were experiencing hardly any such episodes. The results, therefore, revealed that low back was the area of
trouble for the jewellery manufacturing workers.
W. Mishra et al. / An integrative approach for evaluating work related musculoskeletal disorders
443
Table 2
Representing posture analysis scores
Subjects
Jewellery manufacturing workers
Students
Score
5
Action level
3
Remarks
Investigation and changes are required soon
Table 3
Representing percentage of discomforts of various body parts
Body parts
affected
Neck
Shoulder r
Shoulder l
Upper back
Low back
Thigh r
Thigh l
Knee r
Knee l
Elbow r
Elbow l
Hand r
Hand l
Jewellery
manufacturing workers
(% of positive response)
7 (46.67)
6 (40)
3 (20)
7 (46.67)
12 (80)
1 (6.67)
1 (6.67)
8 (53.34)
8 (53.34)
6 (40)
4 (26.67)
6 (40)
4 (26.67)
Students
(% of positive
response)
4 (26.67)
2 (13.34)
2 (13.34)
7 (46.67)
3 (20)
3 (20)
1 (6.67)
1 (6.67)
1 (6.67)
1 (6.67)
3 (20)
1 (6.67)
Table 4
Represents the frequency of episode of trouble once a week from
NMQ for both jewellery manufacturing workers and students
Body parts
% of positive
response in jewellery
manufacturing workers
16.16
16.77
4.16
50
Neck
Shoulders
Upper Back
Low back
% of positive
response in
students
12.5
4.16
12.5
Table 5
Evaluation of questionnaires scores
Questionnaires
DASH
NDI
Oswestry low back
Knee Questionnaire
Levels of
significance
P < 0.05
P > 0.05
P < 0. 05
P < 0.05
Significant /not
significant
significant
not significant
significant
significant
Table 5 presented the results of self assessment questionnaires of specific body regions. Though, the results showed that discomforts of the jewellery manufacturing workers were more in arm, shoulder and hand
(DASH), low back (Oswestry low back questionnaire)
and knee (knee questionnaire) but the individual scores
showed that the responses for arm, shoulder and hand,
neck and knee were within acceptable zones. However,
33% of the jewellery manufacturing workers indicated
moderate disability for low back.
Odds
ratio
2.406
4.331
5.685
4.572
0.286
0.286
15.997
15.997
9.329
0.583
0.167
0.583
95% CI
significant /not
significant
1.3314.35
2.1478.737
2.8311.42
2.448.567
0.1130.721
0.1130.721
6.64738.503
6.64738.503
3.86422.527
0.1632.08
0.0550.508
0.1632.08
significant
significant
significant
significant
not significant
not significant
significant
significant
significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
444
W. Mishra et al. / An integrative approach for evaluating work related musculoskeletal disorders
Table 6
Depicting odds ratio of muscle grading for both the groups
Muscle grading
Flexors
Extensors
Lateral flexor right
Lateral flexor left
Lateral Rotator right
Lateral Rotator left
Odds ratio
15.1667
0.2549
5.1563
5.1563
6.4286
5.1563
Confidence interval
2.8364 to 81.098
0.044 to 1.4753
1.2335 to 21.5545
1.2335 to 21.5545
1.5169 to 27.2448
1.2335 to 21.5545
Remarks
significant
not significant
significant
significant
significant
significant
Table 7
Depicting back strength scores before and after work between same groups
Groups
Morning (kg)
105.54 ( 10.10)
119.96 ( 14.48)
96.75 ( (9.38)
118.52 ( 13.36)
Levels of
significance
P < 0.05
P > 0.05
Significant/not
significant
significant
not significant
6. Conclusion
The study proposed an integrative framework which
is divided into three phases; Phase 1 Ergonomic Risk
Evaluation, Phase 2 MSD Evaluation, Phase 3 Clinical Examination. The framework tries to establish a
relationship among ergonomic risk factors; self reported discomforts and physical measurement of physiological/biomechanical transients. The applicability of
the framework was tested on jewellery manufacturing workers and students which revealed that jewellery
manufacturing workers suffered from more discomforts
as compared to students.
Acknowledgements
We are thankful to National Institute of Industrial
Engineering (NITIE) and TIFAC CORE NITIE for providing the necessary finance and support for the project.
We are also thankful to the jewellery manufacturing
units and the subjects who voluntarily participated in
the study with their full consent.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
A.F. Anderson, J.J. Irrgang, M.S Kocher, B.J. Mann, J.J. Harrast and International Knee Documentation Committee, The
international knee documentation committee subjective knee
evaluation form: normative data, Am J Sports Med 34 (2006),
128-135.
T. Armstrong, P. Buckle and L. Fine, A conceptual model for
work-related neck and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders,
Scand J Work Environ Health 19 (1993), 73-84.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Workplace injuries and illnesses
by selected characteristics, (Washington, DC: US Department
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics), USDL (1995) 95-142.
W. Mishra et al. / An integrative approach for evaluating work related musculoskeletal disorders
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
445
446
[41]
[42]
W. Mishra et al. / An integrative approach for evaluating work related musculoskeletal disorders
J. Winkel and S. Mathiassen, Assessment of physical work in
epidemiology studies: concepts, issues and operational considerations, Ergonomics 37 (1994), 979-988.
B. Winkelstein, Fundamentals and assessment Tools for Oc-
Copyright of Work is the property of IOS Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.