The impact of work rest scheduling for prolonged standing activity

Abstract

Prolonged standing can cause discomfort on the body of the workers and can lead to injury and occupational disease. One of the ergonomic intervention is through improving the work-rest scheduling. The purpose of this study are to identify the fatigue level from the perception of the worker and to investigate the impact of the work-rest scheduling to the standing workers for 12 h working time with a different gender. This study involved two methods which are self-assessment of the worker and direct measurement by using electromyography (EMG). For self-assessment, 80 workers have been interviewed using questionnaire in order to identify the fatigue level. For direct measurement, EMG was attached to the 15 selected workers at their respective leg and lower back to analyse the muscle efforts. In terms of perception, the results show the discomfort and fatigue level at the lower body region in the following order as foot ankle, lower back and leg. There is a significant difference between gender on discomfort pain for foot ankle and leg. The results show short frequent break by 10 min can reduce the fatigue at the leg and infrequent long break is preferable in order to reduce the fatigue at the lower back. In conclusion, it was found that prolonged standing affect the muscle fatigue and discomfort especially lower extremities such as foot ankle, lower back and leg. Besides that, different type of work rest scheduling and gender have significant result towards the muscle fatigue development.

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.…”

“…Such an approach allows for a rigorous examination of the effects of interventions and facilitates a comprehensive analysis of the research findings. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that certain articles demonstrated that the implementation of ergonomic interventions, particularly those involving the application of devices or tools, may not demand an extended duration and can be accomplished within a relatively short period of time (Alipour et al, 2021;Antwi-Afari et al, 2021;Arunkumar et al, 2019;Darliana et al, 2020;Rahman et al, 2019). It subsequently suggests that the timeframe for implementing ergonomic interventions is not rigidly defined and can vary depending on the specific approach and context.…”

Changes in Baropodometric Evaluation and Discomfort during the Workday in Assembly-Line Workers

“…Other proposals focus on the inclusion of short or large breaks during the workday [59], comparing active vs. passive breaks [60]. This kind of solution could be difficult to implement for manufacturing workers where the assembly chain cannot stop.…”