Effectiveness of a lumbopelvic monitor and feedback device to change postural behaviour: the ELF cluster randomised controlled trial

Ribeiro, Daniel Cury; Milosavljevic, Stephan; Terry, Jane; Abbott, J. Haxby

doi:10.1136/oemed-2019-106293

Cited by 13 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of the studies used IMUs with accelerometers only [ 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 53 ], and mostly sensors in the form of prototypes (n = 8) [ 44 , 45 , 46 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 54 ] ( Figure 4 ). Relating to the number of sensors, 5 studies used 1 sensor [ 43 , 46 , 47 , 53 ], 5 other studies used 2 sensors [ 44 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 54 ], 1 study used 3 sensors [ 52 ] and another study used 15 sensors [ 50 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wearables for Monitoring and Postural Feedback in the Work Context: A Scoping Review

Figueira,

Silva,

Costa

et al. 2024

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wearables offer a promising solution for simultaneous posture monitoring and/or corrective feedback. The main objective was to identify, synthesise, and characterise the wearables used in the workplace to monitor and postural feedback to workers. The PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed. Studies were included between 1 January 2000 and 22 March 2023 in Spanish, French, English, and Portuguese without geographical restriction. The databases selected for the research were PubMed®, Web of Science®, Scopus®, and Google Scholar®. Qualitative studies, theses, reviews, and meta-analyses were excluded. Twelve studies were included, involving a total of 304 workers, mostly health professionals (n = 8). The remaining studies covered workers in the industry (n = 2), in the construction (n = 1), and welders (n = 1). For assessment purposes, most studies used one (n = 5) or two sensors (n = 5) characterised as accelerometers (n = 7), sixaxial (n = 2) or nonaxialinertial measurement units (n = 3). The most common source of feedback was the sensor itself (n = 6) or smartphones (n = 4). Haptic feedback was the most prevalent (n = 6), followed by auditory (n = 5) and visual (n = 3). Most studies employed prototype wearables emphasising kinematic variables of human movement. Healthcare professionals were the primary focus of the study along with haptic feedback that proved to be the most common and effective method for correcting posture during work activities.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wearables for Monitoring and Postural Feedback in the Work Context: A Scoping Review

Figueira,

Silva,

Costa

et al. 2024

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Outside of the controlled laboratory environment, a number of factors interact and influence the effectiveness of a strategy. For instance, simply providing a custom auditory feedback on spine flexion has been shown to be ineffective in improving spine posture in workers (Ribeiro et al, 2020 ). As previously discussed, feedback interact with individual and situational factors and a feedback strategy has to cater for these factors to be effective (see Oppici et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberate Practice and Motor Learning Principles to Underpin the Design of Training Interventions for Improving Lifting Movement in the Occupational Sector: A Perspective and a Pilot Study on the Role of Augmented Feedback

Oppici

Grütters

Garofolini

et al. 2021

Front. Sports Act. Living

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spine posture during repetitive lifting is one of the main risk factors for low-back injuries in the occupational sector. It is thus critical to design appropriate intervention strategies for training workers to improve their posture, reducing load on the spine during lifting. The main approach to train safe lifting to workers has been educational; however, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that this approach does not improve lifting movement nor reduces the risk of low back injury. One of the main limitations of this approach lies in the amount, quality and context of practice of the lifting movement. In this article, first we argue for integrating psychologically-grounded perspectives of practice design in the development of training interventions for safe lifting. Principles from deliberate practice and motor learning are combined and integrated. Given the complexity of lifting, a training intervention should occur in the workplace and invite workers to repeatedly practice/perform the lifting movement with the clear goal of improving their lifting-related body posture. Augmented feedback has a central role in creating the suitable condition for achieving such intervention. Second, we focus on spine bending as risk factor and present a pilot study examining the benefits and boundary conditions of different feedback modalities for reducing bending during lifting. The results showed how feedback modalities meet differently key requirements of deliberate practice conditions, i.e., feedback has to be informative, individualized and actionable. Following the proposed approach, psychology will gain an active role in the development of training interventions, contributing to finding solutions for a reduction of risk factors for workers.

show abstract

“…In contrast, the use of the nonmotorized assistive device as an intervention to reduce the risk of WMSDs was evaluated in three RCTs, seven pre-post designs, two controlled clinical trials, and one non-RCT study. These studies focused on low-tech nonmotorized assistive devices aimed at minimizing the primary outcome of WMSDs, including a mat with an attached handle (Muto et al, 2008); unstable shoes (Vieira & Brunt, 2016); foot gel pads (Haramis et al, 2010); trouser with kneepads (Muto et al, 2008); friction-reducing sheet (Wiggermann et al, 2021); sliding board; walking belts (Muto et al, 2008; Zhuang et al, 2000); arm support exosuit (Liu et al, 2018); passive back-support exoskeletons (Hwang et al, 2021); postural monitoring and feedback device (Ribeiro et al, 2020); patient-handling slings (Elford et al, 2000); lumbar support (Roelofs et al, 2010); as well as extended handle stair chair, backboard wheeler, and descent control system for a stretcher (Lavender, Conrad, Reichelt, Kohok, et al, 2007). Similarly, most studies in this category also reported a significant improvement in the primary outcome of WMSDs ( SMD = −0.63, 95% CI = [−1.15, −0.12]).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Interventions in Reducing the Risks of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Halim

Ripin

Ridzwan

2023

Workplace Health Saf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) are prevalent among healthcare professionals, including nurses, therapists, doctors, and paramedics, due to the potential injuries incurred during patient transfer and handling. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of existing interventions in reducing the risks of WMSDs in this population. Methods: Four databases including PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect were searched to identify randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, as well as studies with pre-post design. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies using the Effective Public Health Practice Project criteria. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain quantitative results. Results: A total of 40 studies were included in the review. Among the interventions, motorized assistive devices showed the most significant relative reduction in WMSD risks ( p < .0000; standardized mean difference [ SMD] = −3.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [−4.53, −2.12]), followed by combined interventions of cognitive and exercise ( p < .0001; SMD = −0.62, 95% CI = [−0.91, −0.33]), combined intervention of cognitive and assistive device intervention ( p = .02; SMD = −0.77, 95% CI = [−1.42, −0.12]), nonmotorized assistive device ( p = .02; SMD = −0.63, 95% CI = [−1.15, −0.12]), cognitive intervention ( p < .0001; SMD = −0.62, 95% CI = [−0.91, −0.33]), and physical exercise ( p = .06; SMD = −0.16, 95% CI = [−0.32, 0.00]) intervention. Conclusion: The overall evidence indicates that interventions have a significant effect in reducing the risk of WMSDs among healthcare workers, with motorized assistive devices showing the most promising results. The findings from this review can provide valuable guidance for hospital administrators, policymakers, and other experts in implementing effective strategies to prevent WMSDs among healthcare professionals.

show abstract

Effectiveness of a lumbopelvic monitor and feedback device to change postural behaviour: the ELF cluster randomised controlled trial

Cited by 13 publications

References 39 publications

Wearables for Monitoring and Postural Feedback in the Work Context: A Scoping Review

Wearables for Monitoring and Postural Feedback in the Work Context: A Scoping Review

Deliberate Practice and Motor Learning Principles to Underpin the Design of Training Interventions for Improving Lifting Movement in the Occupational Sector: A Perspective and a Pilot Study on the Role of Augmented Feedback

Efficacy of Interventions in Reducing the Risks of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About