2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.ergon.2013.09.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of a non-expert risk assessment method for hand-arm related tasks (HARM)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
16
0
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
16
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The method exists as HARM1.0 (Douwes and de Kraker, 2014) and the updated HARM 2.0 (TNO, 2012) with reduces the relative weight of task duration, simplifies the force categories and includes some clarifications and changes to the instructions and the manual.…”
Section: Harm (Hand Arm Risk-assessment Method)mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The method exists as HARM1.0 (Douwes and de Kraker, 2014) and the updated HARM 2.0 (TNO, 2012) with reduces the relative weight of task duration, simplifies the force categories and includes some clarifications and changes to the instructions and the manual.…”
Section: Harm (Hand Arm Risk-assessment Method)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…HARM (Douwes and de Kraker, 2014) is a method developed by researchers at the Dutch institute TNO (the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research), specifically tailored to analysing risks for MSDs in the hand and arm, and it takes into account both posture of the arms, wrists, neck and head, and also time aspects (including repetitiveness) and forces. The method exists as HARM1.0 (Douwes and de Kraker, 2014) and the updated HARM 2.0 (TNO, 2012) with reduces the relative weight of task duration, simplifies the force categories and includes some clarifications and changes to the instructions and the manual.…”
Section: Harm (Hand Arm Risk-assessment Method)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In agreement with other assessment tools (Waters et al 1993;Douwes and de Kraker 2014;Garg, Moore, and Kapellusch 2017;Stetson et al 1991), the basis for the assessment criteria in RAMP II is based on research studies utilising different methodologies, expert judgments, and on other assessment tools. Ideally, the quantitative assessment criteria in RAMP II should have been based primarily on data collected in longitudinal epidemiological studies, with highly accurate and precise methods, and on populations working in industries including mainly manual handling.…”
Section: Development Of Ramp IImentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to EU Directives (EU 1989(EU , 1990 employers are required to carry out risk assessments of jobs that induce hazards, in which several observation-based assessment tools are available. The tools often focus on certain WMSD risk factors such as repetitive hand movements (RSI (Garg, Moore, and Kapellusch 2017)), lifting (the NIOSH lifting equation (Waters et al 1993)), pushing (ISO 1228-2:2007(ISO 2007a), or mainly focus on specific parts of the body such as the upper limbs (HARM (Douwes and de Kraker 2014)). Hence, to account for the major WMSD risk factors within such as the manufacturing industry, a combination of tools is usually needed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding the kinematics, we studied the number of peak angles of upper arm elevation and trunk inclination, in line with risk assessment methods such as rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) (McAtamney and Corlett 1993) and occupational repetitive action (OCRA) (Occhipinti 1998). We also studied a dose measure of physical loading over time, the time integral of upper arm elevation and trunk inclination, in line with risk assessment methods such as hand arm risicobeoordelings methode (HARM), in which the exposure to elevation and inclination over time is taken into account (Douwes and de Kraker 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%