This study focused on everyday furniture and computers used in work from home and aimed to investigate how improper postures increase the risk of musculoskeletal disorders using different combinations of tables, chairs, and computers. Twenty-one healthy participants were asked to perform a visual display terminal task for 30 minutes in a laboratory modeled on the work from home concept. Seven experimental conditions were set up according to the different combinations of desks, chairs, and computers. Three-dimensional body posture was measured using a magnetic tracking device. The results showed that when using a low table, floor chair, and laptop computer, the body posture above the hip was similar to that when using a dining table, chair, and desktop computer. When using a sofa, and tablet computers, or laptop computer, severe neck flexion, which is stressful to the neck, was observed. Moreover, excessive low back flexion was observed when using a floor cushion and laptop computer. We suggest that computer work while sitting on a sofa or floor cushion without a backrest is harmful to the neck and low back.
Low back pain is a common problem among competitive swimmers, and repeated torso hyperextension is claimed to be an etiological factor. The purpose of this study was to describe the three-dimensional torso configurations in the front crawl stroke and to test the hypothesis that swimmers experience torso hyperextension consistently across the stroke cycles. Nineteen collegiate swimmers underwent 2 measurements: a measurement of the active range of motion in 3 dimensions and a measurement of tethered front crawl stroke at their maximal effort. Torso extension beyond the active range of torso motion was defined as torso hyperextension. The largest torso extension angle exhibited during the stroke cycles was 9 ± 11° and it was recorded at or around 0.02 ± 0.08 s, the instant at which the torso attained the largest twist angle. No participant hyperextended the torso consistently across the stroke cycles and subjects exhibited torso extension angles during tethered front crawl swimming that were much less than their active range of motion. Therefore, our hypothesis was rejected, and the data suggest that repeated torso hyperextension during front crawl strokes should not be claimed to be the major cause of the high incidence of low back pain in swimmers.
This study aimed to investigate the impact of occupational pushing and pulling combined
with improper working posture on work-related low back pain (LBP) among workers. A
web-based survey was conducted in 2022 to collect data from 15,623 workers, who were
categorized into proper and improper working posture groups. Multiple logistic regression
analysis was used to analyze the association between pushing and pulling loads and LBP in
each group. In the proper working posture group, the odds ratios (ORs) of LBP for workers
who pushed and pulled were not significantly different compared with those of no-handling
workers. However, in the improper working posture group, the ORs of LBP were significantly
greater among workers who pushed and pulled compared with those of no-handling workers,
and this association became stronger with increasing weights. Therefore, improper working
posture combined with pushing and pulling were strongly associated with LBP among workers,
particularly with heavier weights.
Introduction
A quarter of work-related low back pain (LBP) cases result from handling heavy loads in Japan. The maximum weight male/female workers can handle is 40%/24% of their body weight but has set a constant load weight in ISO 11228–1 and NIOSH lifting equation. The preventive effect of the relative weight limit on LBP has not been clarified. This study aimed to identify the effect of relative weight limits set as body weight percentages on LBP prevalence.
Methods
Data from 21924 workers were collected via a web-based survey in 2022. The workers were categorized into three groups: group A, “no handling,” group B, “handling loads up to 40%/24% or less of body weight,” and group C, “handling loads over 40%/24% of body weight.” Moreover, they were categorized into eight groups: no handling, 1–5 kg, 5–10 kg, 10–15 kg, 15–20 kg, 20–25 kg, 25–30 kg, and ≥30 kg. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify the effects of the limits set to body weight percentages and constant load weights on LBP.
Results
In groups A, B, and C, 25.5%, 39.2%, and 47.3% of males or 16.9%, 26.4%, and 38.0% of females had LBP, respectively. The odds ratio (OR) of LBP was significantly greater in group B than in group A and even greater in group C. The OR of LBP among workers handling loads under 10 kg was not significantly different compared to no-handling workers.
Conclusions
LBP prevalence was greater in group B than in group A but lesser than in group C. Weight limits based on body weight percentages could not eliminate the factor of handling loads. However, handling loads under 10 kg suppressed LBP. Relative weight limits set as body weight percentages were inappropriate and ineffective for preventing LBP.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.