Evaluating Swine Injection Technologies as a Workplace Musculoskeletal Injury Intervention: A Study Protocol

Abstract

Intensification of modern swine production has led to many new technologies, including needleless injectors. Although needleless injectors may increase productivity (by reducing injection time) and reduce needlestick injuries, the effect on risk for musculoskeletal disorders is not clear. This project will compare conventional needles with needleless injectors in terms of cost, productivity, injury rates, biomechanical exposures, and worker preference. Muscle activity (EMG) and hand/wrist posture will be measured on swine workers performing injection tasks with both injection methods. Video recordings during the exposure assessments will compare the duration and productivity for each injection method using time-and-motion methods. Injury claim data from up to 60 pig barns will be analyzed for needlestick and musculoskeletal injuries before/after needleless injector adoption. Workers and managers will be asked about what they like and dislike about each method and what helps and hinders successful implementation. The information above will be input into a cost-benefit model to determine the incremental effects of needleless injectors in terms of occupational health, worker preference, and the financial “bottom line” of the farm. Findings will be relevant to the swine industry and are intended to be transferable to other new technologies in animal production.

Non-Inferiority Field Study Comparing the Administrations by Conventional Needle-Syringe and Needle-Free Injectors of a Trivalent Vaccine Containing Porcine Circovirus Types 2a/2b and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae

“…In respect to pig welfare, it reduces the pig pain and stress caused by needle injection, leading to better general health and growth capabilities [ 6 ]. Swine workers experience enhanced safety and enhance productivity from needle-free injection device systems by eliminating the risk of accidental needle stick injuries and repetitive motion injuries attributed to manually squeezing syringe and improving the vaccination process [ 24 ]. Needle-stick injuries among swine veterinarians account for the highest number of physical injuries with 580 out of 794 surveyed veterinarians (73%) suffering needle-stick injuries [ 25 ].…”

Economic analysis of new workplace technology including productivity and injury: The case of needle-less injection in swine

“…This economic evaluation was conducted as part of a larger study examining the impact of technology adoption across multiple domains in the swine industry, with the goal of helping producers make decisions about technology adoption. The full study protocol is described elsewhere [15]. The comprehensive evaluation of needle-less injectors was intended as a case study for new technology adoption in animal production that considered occupational health and safety; it was developed with the participation of swine industry stakeholders.…”

“…Needle-less injectors avoid some of the pitfalls of needle-syringe use: needle-stick injury, occupational exposure to blood pathogens, animal tissue damage, and animal stress [14]. Although needle-less injectors do help eliminate needle-stick injuries, concern has been raised among swine industry stakeholders of a potential to introduce new hazards, such as repetitive, forceful gripping or other postural or repetitive strain due to intensified and specialized task performance [15]. Studies have demonstrated effective immune responses to vaccine and supplements delivered by needle-less injection [16] and the effectiveness of needle-less injection in reducing pork carcass defects [17].…”