Analysis of jobs for control of cumulative trauma disorders

Armstrong, T.; Joseph, B.; Lifshitz, Y.; Woolley, C.

doi:10.1037/e574152012-010

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yen and Radwin (2000) reported that typical values for repetitiveness are in a range between 10 and 20 deviations per minute. Studies of polishing work by Armstrong et al (1984) recorded fundamental movements of about 19.2 times per minute for an 8 hour shift.…”

Section: Independent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Force, posture and repetition induced discomfort as a mediator in self-paced cycle time

Finneran

O’Sullivan

2010

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Independent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The transformation raises the data set to the power of (λ) such that the correlation between the mean and the standard deviation is reduced or eliminated, thereby normalising the data. As per Box and Cox (Box and Cox, 1964) the response y is transformed to y …”

Section: Transformation Of Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Force, posture and repetition induced discomfort as a mediator in self-paced cycle time

Finneran

O’Sullivan

2010

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1 Evidence exists as to the ergonomically stressful features of many jobs in vehicle assembly as well as the manufacturing stages that precede final vehicle assembly. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Several epidemological studies have documented the musculoskeletal disorders associated with the demands of work in this industry. 8 12-19 However, publications are still few relative to the large variety of jobs and exposures and the size of the workforce involved.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ergonomic stressors and upper extremity disorders in vehicle manufacturing: cross sectional exposure-response trends.

Punnett

1998

Occup Environ Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-To evaluate the association between upper extremity soft tissue disorders and exposure to preventable ergonomic stressors in vehicle manufacturing operations. Methods-A cross sectional study was conducted in one vehicle stamping plant and one engine assembly plant. A standardised physical examination of the upper extremities was performed on all subjects. An interviewer administered questionnaire obtained data on demographics, work history, musculoskeletal symptoms, non-occupational covariates, and psychophysical (relative intensity) ratings of ergonomic stressors. The primary exposure score was computed by summing the responses to the psychophysical exposure items. Multivariate regression analysis was used to model the prevalence of disorders of the shoulders or upper arms, wrists or hands, and all upper extremity regions (each defined both by symptoms and by physical examination plus symptoms) as a function of exposure quartile. Results-A total of 1315 workers (85% of the target population) was examined. The prevalence of symptom disorders was 22% for the wrists or hands and 15% for the shoulders or upper arms; cases defined on the basis of a physical examination were about 80% as frequent. Disorders of the upper extremities, shoulders, and wrists or hands all increased markedly with exposure score, after adjustment for plant, acute injury, sex, body mass index, systemic disease, and seniority. Conclusions-Musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremities were strongly associated with exposure to combined ergonomic stressors. The exposure-response trend was very similar for symptom cases and for physical examination cases. It is important to evaluate all dimensions of ergonomic exposure in epidemiological studies, as exposures often occur in combination in actual workplaces. (Occup Environ Med 1998;55:414-420)

show abstract

“…As discussed by Moore and Garg (1995), this is mainly because (l) the dose-response (cause-effect) relationships are not well understood; (2) measurement of some task variables, such as force and even posture, is difficult in an industrial setting; and (3) the number of task variables is very large. However, it is generally recognized that biomechanical risk factors, such as force, repetition, posture, recovery time, duration of exposure, static muscular work, use of the hand as a tool, and type of grasp, are important for explaining the causation mechanism of WUEDs (Armstrong and Lifshiz, 1987;Keyserling et al, 1993). Given the foregoing knowledge, even though limited in scope and subject to epidemiological validation, a few methodologies that allow discrimination between safe and hazardous jobs in terms of workers being at increased risk of developing the WUEDs have been developed and reported in the subject literature.…”

Section: Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%