Document Type: Original Articles

Authors

1 Department of Occupational Health, School of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran;

2 Research Center for Health Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran;

3 Department of Epidemiology, School of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran;

Abstract

Background: Manual load lifting is the most common and stressful activity that imposes high biomechanical pressures on the body, particularly on the back. Diverse studies have shown that load lifting can cause work-related musculoskeletal disorders among workers. This study was conducted to assess manual lifting activity using NIOSH equation and WISHA index and compare the results of the two methods in workers with manual lifting activities.Methods: This cross- sectional study was carried out among 120 workers with manual lifting activity in 7 industrial settings of Shiraz city. Nordic Musculoskeletal disorders Questionnaire (NMQ) and demographic questionnaire, as well as NIOSH lifting equation and WISHA index were used to gather the required data. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, 19.Results: The results showed that back problems were the most frequent musculoskeletal disorders among the workers studied (68.3%). The results of lifting evaluation indicated that 79.2% of the individuals in the NIOSH method and 39.2% in WISHA index were at risk of back injuries. The kappa value was equal to 0.29, indicating a fair agreement between the results of assessment by the two methods.Conclusion: The results of this study confirmed a fair correlation between these two assessment methods, so they might be used interchangeably.

Keywords

  1. Faghih MA, Motamedzade M, Mohammadi H, Habibi
  2. MM, Bayat H, Arassi M, et al. Manual Material
  3. Handling Assessment by Snook tables in Hamadan
  4. casting workshops. Iran Occupational Health 2013;
  5. (1): 60-7. [persian]
  6. Sadeghi Naeini H. The principles of Ergonomics in
  7. Materials Handling Systems. Publications Asana ed.
  8. Tehran: asana; 2000. p. 43. [persian]
  9. Motamedzade M, Dormohammadi A, Amjad Sardrodi
  10. H, Zarei E, Dormohammadi R. The role of ergonomic
  11. design and application of NIOSH method in improving
  12. the safety of load lifting tasks. Arak Medical University
  13. Journal 2013; 16(75): 90-100. [persian]
  14. Lin CJ, Wang SJ, Chen HJ. A field evaluation method
  15. for assessing whole body biomechanical joint stress
  16. in manual lifting tasks. Industrial health 2006; 44(4):
  17. -12.
  18. Straker L. A critical appraisal of manual handling
  19. risk assessment literature: International Ergonomics
  20. Association Press; 1997.
  21. Mohammadian MM, Motamedzade M, Faradmal J.
  22. investigating the correlations of OCRA index, strain
  23. index and ACGIH HAL methods for assessing the
  24. risk of upper limb muskoloskeletal disorders. Journal
  25. of Ergonomics 2013; 1(2): 63-71. [persian]
  26. Moussa MM. Review on health effects related to
  27. mobile phones Part II: results and conclusions. The 1.
  28. Kulin J, Reaston M. Musculoskeletal disorders early
  29. diagnosis: A retrospective study in the occupational medicine setting. Journal of Occupational Medicine
  30. and Toxicology 2011; 6(1).
  31. Lundholm L, Swartz H. musculoskeletal ergonomics in
  32. the construction industry. Facts & figures in brief No.
  33. 2006. Swedish Work Environment Authority 2006.
  34. Dempsey PG. Psychophysical Approach to task
  35. analysis. Fundamentals and assessment tools for
  36. occupational ergonomics Second ed London: Taylor
  37. & Francis 2006: 918-48.
  38. Kuiper JI, Burdorf A, Verbeek JHAM, Frings-Dresen
  39. MHW, van der Beek AJ, Viikari-Juntura ERA.
  40. Epidemiologic evidence on manual materials handling
  41. as a risk factor for back disorders: a systematic review.
  42. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 1999;
  43. (4): 389-404.
  44. Reid CR, McCauley Bush P, Karwowski W, Durrani
  45. SK. Occupational postural activity and lower extremity
  46. discomfort: A review. International Journal of Industrial
  47. Ergonomics 2010; 40(3): 247-56.
  48. Russell SJ, Winnemuller L, Camp JE, Johnson PW.
  49. Comparing the results of five lifting analysis tools.
  50. Applied Ergonomics 2007; 38(1): 91-7.
  51. Sadeghi S, Nourgostar S, Alibeygi N, Bidari A.
  52. Demographic differences among workers with and
  53. without chronic occupationallow back pain in a steel
  54. plant. Iranian Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery 2006;
  55. (2): 143-8. [persian]
  56. National Safety Council [Online]. 1991; Available from:
  57. URL: www.nsc.org/.
  58. Randall SB, Jeter G. A Guide to Manual Materials
  59. Handling and Back Safety: Division of Occupational
  60. Safety and Health, North Carolina Department of
  61. Labor; 1997.
  62. Abedini R, Choobineh A, Soltanzadeh A, Gholami M,
  63. Amiri F, Hashyani AA. Ergonomic Risk Assessment of
  64. Lifting Activities; a Case Study in a Rubber Industry.
  65. Jundishapur J Health Sci 2013; 5(1): 9-15. [persian]
  66. Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, Vinterberg H,
  67. Biering-Sørensen F, Andersson G, et al. Standardised
  68. Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal
  69. symptoms. Applied ergonomics 1987; 18(3): 233-7.
  70. Tayyari F, Smith JL. Manual Materials Handling.
  71. Occupational ergonomics: principles and applications.
  72. first Edition 1997 ed: Chapman & Hall London; 1997.
  73. p 192-207.
  74. Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, National
  75. Institute for Occupational S, Health. Applications
  76. manual for the revised NIOSH lifting equation 1994.
  77. Abdoli Armky M. Manual Material Handling. Body
  78. mechanics and principles of work station design
  79. (ergonomics). Tehran: Omid Majd; 2001. p 161-8.
  80. [persian]
  81. Choobineh A. manual lifting activity. A guide to
  82. human factors and ergonomics. Shiraz 2001. p. 115-16.
  83. [persian]
  84. Keikha moghaddam aa. Ergonomics Assessment Methoda Selection and Application Guide. 1. 1 ed.
  85. Tehran: Fanavaran; 2012. p. 145-169. [persian]
  86. WAC 296-62-051, 2000a. Washington State
  87. Ergonomics Rule. Bureau of L abor and I ndustries,
  88. Olympia, Washington.
  89. WAC 296-62-051, 2000b. Explanatory Statement
  90. (RCW 34.05.325.6a). Washington State Ergonomics
  91. Rule. Bureau of Labor and Industries, Olympia,
  92. Washington, pp. 83–6.
  93. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer
  94. agreement for categorical data. biometrics 1977; 33:
  95. -174.
  96. Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical
  97. kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority
  98. agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 1977;
  99. : 363-74. 27 Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver
  100. agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005; 37(5):
  101. -3.
  102. Rahimabadi S, Khanjani N, Mardi H. The prevalence
  103. of musculoskeletal disorders and their related factors
  104. in workers of a dairy factorynishabur, iran. Journal
  105. of Health & Development 2012; 1(2): 121-9. [persian]
  106. Choobineh AR, Tabatabaei SHR, Mokhtarzadeh A,
  107. Salehi M. (2007). Musculoskeletal problems among
  108. workers of an Iranian rubber factory. Journal of
  109. Occupational Health 2007; 49(5): 418-23.
  110. Choobineh AR, Esmailian A, Mohammadbigi A.
  111. Prevalence of work related musculoskeletal disorders
  112. in Steel Production Structures. Iran J Epidemiol 2009;
  113. (5): 35-43. [persian]