Abstract. Low back pain (LBP) is the most common and most costly musculoskeletal disorder among nursing profession. The ergonomic risk factors are common causes of lumbar injury. This study aims to assess the risk of LBP among nurses in different wards of an Iranian subspecialty hospital by means of MAPO method and to investigate if there is any relationship between calculated index and the self-reported LBP. The study was conducted in 16 sections of an Iranian subspecialty hospital including 174 wards. Exposed nursing staff (N=54) were asked to report LBP experiences in the past year. Our results indicated that approximately 90% of examined wards were in the red band while only 9% were in the yellow and 1% in the green bands. Among all nurses who worked in the high risk wards, 25% reported suffering LBP during the past 12 months. However, 16% of those who were in the medium risk wards also experienced LBP in the past year. Chi-square test showed a significant relationship between LBP incidence and the level of MAPO index (p=0.004). This study suggests that the frequency of LBP among nurses is higher than the general population. The fact that most of the studied wards felt in the red band indicates the elevated risk for low back in the majority of the hospital wards. It is therefore necessary to implement an ergonomic program in order to modify the observed deleterious condition as soon as possible.

Article InfoBackground: Assessment of aerobic capacity is of vital importance in both general community and occupational settings. Valid, reliable and feasible tests are required to indicate the functionality of cardiopulmonary system. The present study was carried out aiming to evaluate the suitability of the Chester step test (CST) as a field test to measure the Iranians' aerobic capacity. Materials and Methods:In this descriptive study performed in 2016, 63 university students completed the Astrand-rhyming cycle ergometer test and the CST. Actual and predicted maximum rate of oxygen consumption (VO 2 max) were recorded and their relationship was examined by Pearson's correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plot. Repeatability was checked using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Predicted and actual amounts of VO 2 max were significantly correlated (r = 0.868, P < 0.001). The mean difference between them was -0.89 ml/kg/minute. ICC between CST and the retest CST (CST retest ) was 0.858. Conclusions: CST is a valid and reliable field test for the estimation of cardiorespiratory capacity among the study subjects. With its exclusive features (e.g. safety, convenience and ease of use), CST could be suggested as an alternative to other existing methods of estimating VO 2 max; the applicability of the existing methods among Iranian individuals are unclear. However, like other estimation methods, special prudence should be adopted when dealing with critical health decisions.