Current techniques for assessing physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal risks, with emphasis on posture-based methods

Abstract

Physical exposure to risks for potential work-related musculoskeletal injuries has been assessed using a variety of methods, including pen and paper based observation methods, videotaping and computer-aided analysis, direct or instrumental techniques, and various approaches to self-report assessment. These methods are critically reviewed in this paper. The applications of these techniques in ergonomic and epidemiologic studies are considered, and their advantages and shortcomings are highlighted. Finally, a strategy that considers both the ergonomics experts' view and the practitioners' needs for developing a practical exposure assessment tool is then discussed.

Self-administered questionnaire and direct observation by checklist: Comparing two methods for physical exposure surveillance in a highly repetitive tasks plant

“…Moreover, checklists are standardized but simplistic methods, compared to other observational methods: only the most frequent situations were explored with dichotomous exposure items, and without any weighting of these (some situations are probably worse than others). Several other checklists have been developed to assess UWMSD risk (Li and Buckle 1999), beyond the ones focused on posture (Karhu et al 1977;McAtamney and Nigel 1993): we could mention for instance the Concise Exposure Index (OCRA) developed in 1998 to quantify worker exposure to tasks involving repetitive movement of the upper limb (Occhipinti 1998), the Quick Exposure Checklist (QEC) developed also in 1998, which represents a UWMSD assessment checklist tool (Li and Buckle 1998) (Silverstein 1997), or standards (IS0 11226). However, when the study was designed, most of the existing checklists had not yet been validated for surveillance purposes (Kilbom 1994;Li and Buckle 1999).…”

“…Several other checklists have been developed to assess UWMSD risk (Li and Buckle 1999), beyond the ones focused on posture (Karhu et al 1977;McAtamney and Nigel 1993): we could mention for instance the Concise Exposure Index (OCRA) developed in 1998 to quantify worker exposure to tasks involving repetitive movement of the upper limb (Occhipinti 1998), the Quick Exposure Checklist (QEC) developed also in 1998, which represents a UWMSD assessment checklist tool (Li and Buckle 1998) (Silverstein 1997), or standards (IS0 11226). However, when the study was designed, most of the existing checklists had not yet been validated for surveillance purposes (Kilbom 1994;Li and Buckle 1999). At that time, the checklist derived from Keyserling et al seemed the most appropriate standardized checklist for this plant, considering the kind of exposure and the only reasonable observational methods in the context of a first-level surveillance programs (Hagberg et al 1995).…”

“…However, the self-administered questionnaire seemed to be more accurate in identifying high risk workers in this setting of jobs with high physical demands. The poor agreement between self-administered and observational methods suggests that these methods may be complementary, and should be used in combination (Hagberg et al 1995;Li and Buckle 1999;Spielholz et al 2001;Leclerc 2005;Wiktorin et al 1993;Wiktorin et al 1999).…”

“…Various assessment methods of biomechanical exposures are available, including selfreported methods using questionnaires, observational methods using checklists, video or computer analyses, and direct measurements of posture and local muscle fatigue (Li and Buckle 1999). In the context of surveillance, observational methods and direct measurements are often too expensive to apply to a large number of persons and exposures variables, while questionnaires are less expensive.…”

Using Kinect™ sensor in observational methods for assessing postures at work

“…Instrument-based or direct measurement methods employ sensors attached to the subject for measuring certain variables These methods collect accurate data, but are intervening, require considerable initial investment to purchase the equipment, as well as the resources necessary to cover the costs of maintenance and the employment of highly trained and skilled technical staff to ensure their effective operation (David, 2005;Trask and Mathiassen, 2012). Direct methods are preferred by researchers, but are unsuitable for use in real work situations (Li and Buckle, 1999).…”