OBJECTIVE: The three main objectives are to analyze published pen-and-paper observational methods, to extract and understand the risk levels of each method and to identify their associated health effects.
METHODOLOGY: The authors searched scientific databases and the Internet for materials from 1970 to 2013 using the following keywords: ergo, posture, method, observational, postural angle, health effects, pain and diseases. Postural assessments of upper arms, lower arms, wrists, neck, back and legs in six pen-and-paper-based observational methods are highlighted, extracted in groups and linked with associated adverse health effects.
RESULTS: The literature reviewed showed strengths and limitations of published pen-and-paper-based observational methods in determining the work activities, risk levels and related postural angles to adverse health effects. This provided a better understanding of unsafe work postures and how to improve these postures.
CONCLUSION: Many pen-and-paper-based observational methods have been developed. However, there are still many limitations of these methods. There is, therefore, a need to develop a new pen-and-paper-based observational method for assessing postural problems.
METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted with convenience sampling employed across five different departments. The departments were a department of medical, surgical, orthopedics, emergency and rehabilitation. The samples were selected according to a minimum of two years of clinical experience without any history of low back surgery. An instrument consists of socio-demographic background, knowledge on body mechanics and Owestry Low Back Pain Disability Index Questionnaire was used in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 139 HCPs were recruited including medical officers, staff nurses, community health nurses, assistant medical officers, physiotherapists, and assistant nurses. A self-administered questionnaire pertaining to knowledge revealed that 73.4% of HCPs had inadequate knowledge of musculoskeletal body mechanics. Among all, 90.6% (minimal: 9.4%, moderate: 43.2%, severe: 42.4%, crippled: 5.0%) of HCPs showed moderate to crippled disability using Oswestry Disability Index classifications indicating the poor practice of body mechanics while working.
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that a lack of knowledge among healthcare professionals lead to the inadequate practice of preserving musculoskeletal health while carrying out duty in caring patients. It is suggested that enforcing and emphasizing health education for healthcare professionals is urgently needed towards reducing the risk of the musculoskeletal problem among healthcare professionals.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of physical, cognitive and organisational ergonomic interventions, or combinations of those interventions for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs among office workers.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Embase, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to 10 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic interventions for preventing work-related upper limb or neck MSDs (or both) among office workers. We only included studies where the baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, was less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the interventions and outcomes in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs (2165 workers). We judged one study to have a low risk of bias and the remaining 14 studies to have a high risk of bias due to small numbers of participants and the potential for selection bias.Physical ergonomic interventionsThere is inconsistent evidence for arm supports and alternative computer mouse designs. There is moderate-quality evidence that an arm support with an alternative computer mouse (two studies) reduced the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99), but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck or shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There is moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck or shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not considerably reduced when comparing an alternative computer mouse and a conventional mouse (two studies; neck or shoulder: RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), and also when comparing an arm support with a conventional mouse and a conventional mouse alone (two studies) (neck or shoulder: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 6.98; right upper limb: RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.96).Workstation adjustment (one study) and sit-stand desks (one study) did not have an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort, compared to no intervention.Organisational ergonomic interventionsThere is very low-quality evidence that supplementary breaks (two studies) reduce discomfort of the neck (MD -0.25; 95% CI -0.40 to -0.11), right shoulder or upper arm (MD -0.33; 95% CI -0.46 to -0.19), and right forearm or wrist or hand (MD -0.18; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.08) among data entry workers.Training in ergonomic interventionsThere is low to very low-quality evidence in five studies that participatory and active training interventions may or may not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb or neck or both.Multifaceted ergonomic interventionsFor multifaceted interventions there is one study (very low-quality evidence) that showed no effect on any of the six upper limb pain outcomes measured in that study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found inconsistent evidence that the use of an arm support or an alternative mouse may or may not reduce the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs. For other physical ergonomic interventions there is no evidence of an effect. For organisational interventions, in the form of supplementary breaks, there is very low-quality evidence of an effect on upper limb discomfort. For training and multifaceted interventions there is no evidence of an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions among office workers.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of workplace ergonomic design or training interventions, or both, for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group Database and Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register to July 2010, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre database to November 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic workplace interventions for preventing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs. We included only studies with a baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, of less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the intervention and outcome in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (2397 workers). Eleven studies were conducted in an office environment and two in a healthcare setting. We judged one study to have a low risk of bias. The 13 studies evaluated effectiveness of ergonomic equipment, supplementary breaks or reduced work hours, ergonomic training, a combination of ergonomic training and equipment, and patient lifting interventions for preventing work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck in adults.Overall, there was moderate-quality evidence that arm support with alternative mouse reduced the incidence of neck/shoulder disorders (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99) but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck/shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There was also moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not reduced when comparing alternative mouse and conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), arm support and no arm support with conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.24; right upper limb RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.51 to 2.29), and alternative mouse with arm support and conventional mouse with arm support (neck/shoulder RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.12; right upper limb RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.36).There was low-quality evidence that using an alternative mouse with arm support compared to conventional mouse with arm support reduced neck/shoulder discomfort (SMD -0.39; 95% CI -0.67 to -0.10). There was low- to very low-quality evidence that other interventions were not effective in reducing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the use of arm support with alternative mouse may reduce the incidence of neck/shoulder MSDs, but not right upper limb MSDs. Moreover, we found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb MSDs is not reduced when comparing alternative and conventional mouse with and without arm support. However, given there were multiple comparisons made involving a number of interventions and outcomes, high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions clearly. While we found very-low- to low-quality evidence to suggest that other ergonomic interventions do not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck, this was limited by the paucity and heterogeneity of available studies. This review highlights the need for high-quality RCTs examining the prevention of MSDs of the upper limb and neck.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effects of work improvement module using a Kiken Yochi participatory approach intervention in reducing MSS among male migrant pineapple farm plantation workers in Pontian, Johor.
METHODOLOGY: In this interventional study, a total of 68 male migrant workers from two plantation farms were invited to become a participant in this study. In total, 45 participants that consisted of 27 workers for the intervention group and 18 workers for the control group were recruited. The background of workers and MSS were assessed using questionnaires. Ergonomic and postural risks were evaluated and the work tasks with the highest risk were used as a basis for the development of the Kiken Yochi training module. MSS education and training intervention that provided information on proper lifting techniques and education on body mechanics and ergonomics to reduce MSS were implemented to both groups of workers. Kiken Yochi Training was given to the intervention group only. MSS were reassessed after 2 months of the follow-up period. Data was entered into statistical software and were analysed according to objectives.
RESULTS: In terms of the postural risk assessment, almost two-third of the participants (68.5%) had working postures categorized as high risk for MSS. Ergonomic risk assessment identified cultivation, manual weeding and harvesting of pineapples as the work tasks contributing the highest health risks to workers. The most commonly reported MSS between both groups of workers were at the knees, lower back and shoulder area. Upon completion of the delivery of intervention module to both groups of workers, the MSS prevalence reported (after 2 months) were significantly lower for the ankles and feet area within the intervention group.
CONCLUSION: This study suggested that development and implementation of programs using effective participatory approach training methods are able to prevent selected musculoskeletal problems for this occupation. To enhance the effects of such trainings, modifications of work tools in this occupation are desirable.
PURPOSE: This review article aims to recapitulate the therapeutic potential of berberine and its mechanism of action in treating musculoskeletal disorders.
METHODS: A wide range of literature illustrating the effects of berberine in ameliorating musculoskeletal disorders was retrieved from online electronic databases (PubMed and Medline) and reviewed.
RESULTS: Berberine may potentially retard the progression of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Limited studies reported the effects of berberine in suppressing the proliferation of osteosarcoma cells. These beneficial properties of berberine are mediated in part through its ability to target multiple signaling pathways, including PKA, p38 MAPK, Wnt/β-catenin, AMPK, RANK/RANKL/OPG, PI3K/Akt, NFAT, NF-κB, Hedgehog, and oxidative stress signaling. In addition, berberine exhibited anti-apoptotic, anti-inflammatory, and immunosuppressive properties.
CONCLUSION: The current evidence indicates that berberine may be effective in preventing musculoskeletal disorders. However, findings from in vitro and in vivo investigations await further validation from human clinical trial.