Ergonomic risk factors and musculoskeletal disorders in bank staff: an interventional follow-up study in Iran

Abstract

Background Long-term use of computer in a static mode may cause musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in bank staff. Considering the high number of bank employees in different countries, such as Iran, the risk factors of these disorders should be investigated in order to implement interventions required to reduce the risk factors. This study aimed to examine the risk factors of MSDs using the Rapid Office Strain Assessment (ROSA) method and to perform an ergonomic intervention program with banking staff in Iran. Methods This interventional study was conducted on 277 bank employees in Iran. Subjects were randomly divided into three groups, including a control group (without any intervention), an educational intervention (EI) group, and a group receiving both educational and physical intervention (EPI). Before and after the intervention, the ROSA method and Nordic questionnaire were used to assess the risk factors of MSDs in office jobs and to investigate the prevalence of MSDs. Data were collected 2 weeks before and 9 months following the intervention. Results Before the intervention, the mean score of ROSA at workstations of all groups was above five with high risk. Nine months after the start of the intervention, there was a significant decrease in the mean ROSA score and its components in the two groups that received the intervention, which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The results of the study of the prevalence of MSDs in the employees—before the intervention—indicate that the highest prevalence of MSDs in the control group was in areas of the neck (67.1%), back (64.4%), and lower back (63%). In the EI group, the highest prevalence of MSDs was in the neck (65.2%), lower back (61.6%), and back (60.7%) areas. In the EPI group, the discomfort areas were the neck (68.5%), shoulders (66.3%), and lower back (60.9%). Nine months after the intervention, there was a significant decrease in the prevalence of MSDs in the neck, shoulders, and lumbar regions of staff who received the intervention (P < 0.05). Conclusion Nine months after performing the interventions, there was a relative improvement in workstations and prevalence of MSDs in various areas within the bodies of the bank staff. This study showed that using the ROSA method is appropriate for assessing the risk factors of office work and that it can identify deficiencies in workstations. These defects can be addressed by designing and implementing an EI program together with physical interventions according to the components of the ROSA method.

Ergonomic Intervention Practice at the Workplace in Asian boundary: A systematic review

“…Findings from the synthesis analysis indicated that ergonomic interventions have been frequently employed in Asian countries via three distinct approaches: device or tool-based interventions, administrative interventions, and a combination of both. As shown in Table 4, seven articles explored the utilization of devices or tools as a means of ergonomic intervention (Alipour et al, 2021;Antwi-Afari et al, 2021;Arunkumar et al, 2019;Darliana et al, 2020;Kong et al, 2023;Mohammad Yusof et al, 2021;Ramdan & Candra, 2021), seven articles focused on the use of administration (Alghadir et al, 2021;Anshasi et al, 2022;Dhole et al, 2021;Heidarimoghadam et Hijam et al, 2020;Lin et al, 2022;Rahman et al, 2019), and eight articles used a combination of both approaches (Esmaeili et al, 2023;Kee, 2022;Motamedzadeh et al, 2021;Rostami et al, 2022;So et al, 2019;Susihono & Adiatmika, 2021;Susihono & Gede, 2020;Yang et al, 2021).…”

“…Nonetheless, several scholarly articles have underscored the importance of periodic follow-up assessments to ensure their efficiency and sustainability (Esmaeili et al, 2023;Heidarimoghadam et al, 2020;Lin et al, 2022;Ramdan & Candra, 2021;Susihono & Adiatmika, 2021;Susihono & Gede, 2020;Yang et al, 2021). In terms of sample size or participant selection, certain articles employed mathematical formula to ascertain sample size (Dhole et al, 2021;Heidarimoghadam et al, 2020;Hijam et al, 2020;Lin et al, 2022;Mohammad Yusof et al, 2021;Rostami et al, 2022;So et al, 2019) while others either utilized the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Alghadir et al, 2021;Alipour et al, 2021;Antwi-Afari et al, 2021;Esmaeili et al, 2023;Kee, 2022;Kong et al, 2023;Motamedzadeh et al, 2021;Rahman et al, 2019;Ramdan & Candra, 2021;Susihono & Adiatmika, 2021;Susihono & Gede, 2020;Yang et al, 2021) or did not explicitly specify their sampling approach (Anshasi et al, 2022;Arunkumar et al, 2019;Darliana et al, 2020). Further analysis of the years of publication showed that a total of nine articles were published in 2021, which was the highest between 2018 to 2023.…”

“…A number of studies employed the engineering and administrative control terminology to reduce the impact of WRMSDs within the working environments (Kee, 2022). Other studies, on the other hand, utilized the terminology of physical and administrative interventions to mitigate WRMSDs (Motamedzadeh et al, 2021). Additionally, one study used the terminology of engineering and training interventions (Esmaeili et al, 2023).…”

“…Due to the increasing prevalence of WRMSDs in the workplace, ergonomic intervention is particularly important as a preventive measure (Rostami et al, 2022). To reduce the effect of WRMSDs, several research employed administrative and engineering terms (Kee, 2022), physical and administrative interventions (Motamedzadeh et al, 2021), as well as engineering and training interventions (Esmaeili et al, 2023). These aspects are described in this review using the terms 'application of devices or tools' and 'administrative approach'.…”

Preparedness Assessment of Teaching Hospitals Affiliated With Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Response to Biological Incidents

“…Further analysis revealed that 9(64.3%) and 5(35.7%) hospitals had acceptable and moderate levels of preparedness in response to biological incidents, respectively. In studies that assess hospital preparedness for biological incidents, different tools have been used for this purpose, each of which evaluates various indicators of preparedness [4,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. Moreover, available tools cannot provide accurate and reliable indicators to estimate hospital preparedness in response to biological incidents [35].…”