Technical field measurements of muscular workload during stocking activities in supermarkets: cross-sectional study

Abstract

Multiple studies have reported high prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among supermarket workers. Technical field measurements can provide important knowledge about ergonomic risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders in the physical working environment, but these measurements are lacking in the supermarket sector. Therefore, using wearable electromyography and synchronous video recording in 75 supermarket workers, this cross-sectional study measured muscular workload during stocking activities in six different types of general store departments and during the thirteen most common work tasks across five different supermarket chains. Our results showed that muscular workload varies, especially for the low-back muscles, across (1) supermarket chains, (2) departments, and (3) specific stocking activities. Highest workloads of the low-back and neck/shoulders were seen in the fruit and vegetables department and during heavy, two-handed lifts of parcels (especially without using technical aids). In conclusion, physical work demands during supermarket stocking activities differ between chains, departments, and work tasks. These results can be used by company representatives and work environment professionals to specifically address and organize the stocking procedures to reduce the muscular workload during supermarket stocking.

The Importance of Lifting Height and Load Mass for Muscular Workload during Supermarket Stocking: Cross-Sectional Field Study

“…In accordance with the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) reporting guidelines [ 44 ], this cross-sectional field study reports the estimates of muscular workload in relation to lifting height and load mass during grocery stocking among Danish supermarket workers ( n = 75) from five different supermarket chains [ 45 ]. Research collaborators from The Danish Chamber of Commerce contacted and recruited representatives from interested supermarket chains, who were responsible for the recruitment of volunteering supermarket stores.…”

“…In the present study, we included adult supermarket workers (≥18 years) that had been working roughly full-time (≥30 h per week) for a minimum of six months, and excluded candidates with severe cardiovascular disease, ambulatory systolic/diastolic blood pressure ≥160/100 mmHg, and pregnancy [ 43 ]. All participants ( n = 75) were asked to reply to an electronic questionnaire regarding their work environment, lifestyle, and health, and the entire questionnaire and replies have been published previously [ 45 ]. Response rate for completing the entire questionnaire was 89% ( n = 67).…”

“…During data collection, all participants performed approximately 1½–2 h of un-restricted MMH (grocery stocking), while the principal investigators (SVS and RB) carried out the technical measurements and simultaneously video recorded the work activities (see Figure 1 ) [ 45 ]. During data analysis, we used the video recordings to categorize the lifting tasks by lifting height and load mass (see below).…”

“…We assessed muscular workload (based on myoelectric activity) using an experimental protocol previously applied and described by our lab [ 43 , 46 ]. Briefly, we combined sEMG measurements with simultaneous video recordings of the stocking activities in the supermarkets [ 45 ]. We measured muscular workload of the m. erector spinae longissimus, m. iliocostalis, and m. trapezius descendens, since these body regions (the low-back and neck/shoulders) are highly susceptible to MSD in general [ 47 ] and among supermarket workers [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ].…”

Differences in the impact of impaired glucose status on clinical outcomes in younger and older adults: Over a decade of follow-up in the Tehran lipid and glucose study

“…Since significant interactions were observed between age groups and different glycemic categories (min p -value =0.001), the analyses were performed in each age group separately. For the interaction p -value, we did not consider the multiple Bonferroni correction tests for two reasons: first, to reduce the chance of obligating type II errors, and second, the comparison was made for each glycemic category independently ( 26 , 27 ). No interaction was observed between gender and glycemic categories; therefore, gender was adjusted in the models.…”