Are changes in mechanical exposure and musculoskeletal health good performance indicators for primary interventions?

Lötters, Freek; Burdof, Alex

doi:10.1007/s00420-002-0368-7

Cited by 37 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(85 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…29 Comprehensive employee health programs should identify potential obstacles and facilitators that operate at multiple levels. 60,113,[117][118][119][120][121] Workers are often best qualified to evaluate programmatic congruence with their own psychosocial and material needs, and can identify incumbent health barriers and opportunities from their experiential knowledge of the workplace culture and environment. 118,122 Participatory approaches to organizational flexibility, cited as important ingredients in successful community health interventions, 123 can apply in work settings.…”

Section: Health Decision-making and Participatory Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Conceptual Framework for Integrating Workplace Health Promotion and Occupational Ergonomics Programs

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SYNOPSISMusculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and mental health are all associated with the physical and psychosocial conditions of work, as well as with individual health behaviors. An integrated approach to workplace health-promotion programs should include attention to the work environment, especially in light of recent findings that work organization influences so-called lifestyle or health behaviors. Macroergonomics provides a framework to improve both physical and organizational features of work and, in the process, to empower individual workers. The Center for the Promotion of Health in the New England Workplace (CPH-NEW) is a research-to-practice effort examining the effectiveness of worksite programs that combine occupational safety and health-especially ergonomics-with health promotion, emphasizing the contribution of work organization to both. Two intervention studies are underway in three different sectors: health care, corrections, and manufacturing. Each study features participatory structures to facilitate employee input into health goal-setting, program design and development, and evaluation, with the goal of enhanced effectiveness and longer-term sustainability.

show abstract

Section: Health Decision-making and Participatory Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Conceptual Framework for Integrating Workplace Health Promotion and Occupational Ergonomics Programs

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This has hampered our ability to recommend acceptable levels of biomechanical exposure at work (8), whereas for chemical agents many threshold limit values are available that guide the occupational health professional in the prevention of work-related diseases. Primary preventive interventions to reduce biomechanical exposure at work have difficulties in demonstrating that a reduction in biomechanical exposure results in a lower occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders (9,10). The assessment of biomechanical exposure has emerged as a key issue in developing guidelines to prevent the onset of musculoskeletal disorders in occupational populations and designing appropriate primary preventive interventions that reduce hazardous biomechanical exposure to levels that no longer harm the workforce.…”

Section: The Role Of Assessment Of Biomechanical Exposure At the Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of assessment of biomechanical exposure at the workplace in the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders

Burdorf¹

2009

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although valuable information can be obtained from these laboratory measurements, there is a growing need for low back load assessment outside the laboratory, e.g., epidemiological surveys (Kuiper et al, 1999) and intervention studies (Lötters and Burdof, 2002). For such field studies it is often infeasible to utilize the above mentioned laboratory measurement techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating 3D L5/S1 moments and ground reaction forces during trunk bending using a full-body ambulatory inertial motion capture system

Faber

Chang

Kingma

et al. 2016

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tInertial motion capture (IMC) systems have become increasingly popular for ambulatory movement analysis. However, few studies have attempted to use these measurement techniques to estimate kinetic variables, such as joint moments and ground reaction forces (GRFs).Therefore, we investigated the performance of a full-body ambulatory IMC system in estimating 3D L5/S1 moments and GRFs during symmetric, asymmetric and fast trunk bending, performed by nine male participants. Using an ambulatory IMC system (Xsens/MVN), L5/S1 moments were estimated based on the upper-body segment kinematics using a top-down inverse dynamics analysis, and GRFs were estimated based on full-body segment accelerations.As a reference, a laboratory measurement system was utilized: GRFs were measured with Kistler force plates (FPs), and L5/S1 moments were calculated using a bottom-up inverse dynamics model based on FP data and lower-body kinematics measured with an optical motion capture system (OMC). Correspondence between the OMCþ FP and IMC systems was quantified by calculating root-mean-square errors (RMSerrors) of moment/force time series and the interclass correlation (ICC) of the absolute peak moments/forces.Averaged over subjects, L5/S1 moment RMSerrors remained below 10 Nm (about 5% of the peak extension moment) and 3D GRF RMSerrors remained below 20 N (about 2% of the peak vertical force). ICCs were high for the peak L5/S1 extension moment (0.971) and vertical GRF (0.998). Due to lower amplitudes, smaller ICCs were found for the peak asymmetric L5/S1 moments (0.690-0.781) and horizontal GRFs (0.559-0.948).In conclusion, close correspondence was found between the ambulatory IMC-based and laboratory-based estimates of back load.

show abstract

Are changes in mechanical exposure and musculoskeletal health good performance indicators for primary interventions?

Cited by 37 publications

References 47 publications

A Conceptual Framework for Integrating Workplace Health Promotion and Occupational Ergonomics Programs

A Conceptual Framework for Integrating Workplace Health Promotion and Occupational Ergonomics Programs

The role of assessment of biomechanical exposure at the workplace in the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders

Estimating 3D L5/S1 moments and ground reaction forces during trunk bending using a full-body ambulatory inertial motion capture system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About