Journal of Health Sciences & Surveillance System

Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Symptoms and Assessment of Working Conditions in an Iranian Petrochemical Industry

Document Type : Original Articles

Authors

Alireza Choobineh 1
Hadi Daneshmandi 2
Shahed Asadi 3
Shahram Ahmadi 4

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

2 Department of Ergonomics, School of Health and Nutrition, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran;

3 Head of Health Department, Nouri Petrochemical Complex, Asaloyeh, Iran;

4 Head of HSE Department, Nouri Petrochemical Complex, Asaloyeh, Iran

Abstract
Background/Objective: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are one of the most common causes of occupational injuries. This study was conducted with the objectives of determination of prevalence rate of MSDs and ergonomics assessment of the risk of MSDs among workers of a petrochemical company. Methods: In this study, 261randomly selected workers in a petrochemical company with at least one year of job tenure participated. Office and operational personnel were studied separately. In office jobs, data were collected using Nordic musculoskeletal disorders questionnaire (NMQ) and ergonomics checklist for assessment of work conditions. In operational jobs, NMQ and QEC (Quick Exposure Check) methods were applied to gather the required data. Data analysis was performed using SPSS software. Results: The most prevalent MSDs symptoms were reported in the lower back (36.2%), upper back (31%), neck (31%) and knees (30.3%). The results showed that the prevalence of MSDs indifferent body regions of the office staff was higher than those of operational workers. Also, in 40.9% of the observed cases, total ergonomics index was in action category 1 (inappropriate working conditions) and 59.9% of the subjects taken in action category 2 (appropriate working conditions). The results of assessment by QEC technique among operational workers showed that in 82.8% of the workers studied, the level of exposure to musculoskeletal risks was high or very high. Conclusions: The prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in the office staff was higher than that of operational subjects. To improve the working conditions, taking risk factors of the lower back, upper back, neck and knees into consideration seems to be essential.

Keywords

Musculoskeletal disorders
Ergonomics
Risk
  1. Bongers PM, Ijmker S, van den Heuvel S,
  2. Blatter BM. Epidemiology of work related
  3. neck and upper limb problems: psychosocial
  4. and personal risk factors (part I) and
  5. effective interventions from a bio behavioral
  6. perspective (part II). Journal of Occupational
  7. Rehabilitation 2006;16:279–302.
  8. Genaidy AM, Al-Shedi AA, Shell RL.
  9. Ergonomics risk assessment: preliminary
  10. guidelines for analysis of repetition force
  11. and posture. Journal of Human Ergology
  12. ;22:45-55.
  13. Kemmlert K: Labor inspectorate investigation
  14. for the prevention of occupational musculoskeletal
  15. injuries [licentiate thesis]. Solna,
  16. Sweden, National Institute of Occupational
  17. Health, 1994.
  18. Shahnavaz H. Workplace injuries in the
  19. developing countries. Ergonomics 1987;30:
  20. -404.
  21. Jafry T, O’Neill DH. The application of
  22. ergonomics in rural development: a review.
  23. ApplErgon 2000;31:263-8. http://www.ncbi.
  24. nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10855449
  25. Bernard BP, editor. Musculoskeletal disorders
  26. and workplace factors (NIOSH Publication
  27. No. 97-141). Cincinnati, OH, USA: National
  28. Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
  29. (NIOSH); 1997. Retrieved June 19, 2009,
  30. from: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-141
  31. Linton SJ, Kamwendo K. Risk factors in the
  32. psychosocial work environment for neck and
  33. shoulder pain in secretaries. J Occup Med
  34. ;31:609-13.
  35. Weiser S. Psychosocial aspects of
  36. occupational musculoskeletal disorders. In:
  37. Nordin M, Andersson GBJ, Pope MH, editors:
  38. Musculoskeletal disorders in the workplace:
  39. principles and practice. St. Louis, MO, USA:
  40. Mosby-Year Book; 1997. p. 51–61.
  41. Howard N, Spielholz P, Bao S, Silverstein
  42. B, Fan ZJ. Reliability of an observational
  43. tool to assess the organization of work. Int J
  44. IndErgon 2009;39:260–6.
  45. Larsman P, Hanse JJ. The impact of decision
  46. latitude, psychological load and social support
  47. at work on the development of neck, shoulder
  48. and low back symptoms among female human
  49. service organization workers. Int J IndErgon
  50. ;39:442–6.
  51. Choobineh AR, Lahmi MA, Shahnavaz H,
  52. KhaniJazani R, Hosseini M. Musculoskeletal
  53. symptoms as related to ergonomic factors
  54. in Iranian hand-woven carpet industry and
  55. general guidelines for workstation design. Int
  56. J Occup Safety and Ergon 2004;10(2):157-68.
  57. Choobineh AR, Movahed M, Tabatabaie
  58. SHR, Kumashiro M. Perceived demands and
  59. musculoskeletal disorders in operating room
  60. nurses of Shiraz city hospitals. Ind Health
  61. ;48:74-84.
  62. Choobineh AR, Peyvandi Sani GR, Sharif
  63. Rohani M, Gangi Pour M, Neghab M.
  64. Perceived demands and musculoskeletal
  65. symptoms among employees of an Iranian
  66. petrochemical industry. Int J IndErgon
  67. ;39(5):766-70.
  68. Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, Vinterberg
  69. H, Biering-Sorensen F, Andersson G, et
  70. al. Standardized Nordic Questionnaires for
  71. the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms.
  72. ApplErgon 1987;18:233-7.
  73. Choobineh AR, Rahimifard H, Jahangiri M,
  74. Mahmoodkhani S. Musculoskeletal Injuries
  75. and Their Associated Risk Factors in Office
  76. Workers. Iran Occupational Health 2012; 8(4):
  77. -81. [Persian].
  78. Metz, C.E.: The receiver operating
  79. characteristic curve. Seminar in nuclear
  80. medicine 1978; 8: 283-98.
  81. Buckle P and Li G. A practical approach
  82. musculoskeletal risk assessment in the real
  83. workplace. In: Seppace Lae P, Luopagae
  84. Rvi T, Nygaerd C and Mattila M, eds. From
  85. experience to innovation. Proceedings of the
  86. th triennial Congress of the International
  87. Ergonomics Association, Vol. 4, June 29 - July
  88. , 1997; Tampere, Finland (Helsinki: Finish
  89. Institute of Occupational Health), 138-40.
  90. Li G, Buckle P. The development of practical
  91. tool for musculoskeletal risk assessment.
  92. In: Robertson SA, editor: Contemporary
  93. Ergonomics. London; Taylor & Francis;1997.
  94. P. 442-7.
  95. National Research Center of Medical Sciences
  96. Choobineh AR, Daneshmandi H, Asadi Sh, Ahmadi Sh
  97. J Health Sci Surveillance Sys July 2013; Vol 1; No 1
  98. of Iran. National health survey of Iran: overall
  99. country. Tehran, Iran: Health Ministry of I.R.
  100. Iran, Research Chancellor, 2001.
  101. Choobineh AR, Soleimani E, Mohammad
  102. Beigi A. The frequency of symptoms of
  103. skeletal disorders-muscle in steel structures
  104. industry workers. Journal of Epidemiology
  105. ; 5(3): 35-43. [Persian].
  106. Sauter SL, Schleifer LM, Knutson SJ.
  107. Work posture, workstation design, and
  108. musculoskeletal discomfort in a VDT data
  109. entry task. Hum Factors 1991; 33(2):151-67.
  110. Lin RT, Chan CC. Effectiveness of workstation
  111. design on reducing musculoskeletal risk
  112. factors and symptoms among semiconductor
  113. fabrication room workers. International
  114. Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2007; 37:
  115. –42.
  116. Evans O, Patterson K. Predictors of neck and
  117. shoulder pain in non-secretarial computer
  118. users. International Journal of Industrial
  119. Ergonomics 2000; 26: 357-65.
  120. Choobineh A, Tabatabaei H, Mokhtarzadeh A,
  121. Salehi M. Musculoskeletal problems among
  122. workers of an Iranian rubber factory. J Occup
  123. Health 2007; 26: 418-23.
Journal of Health Sciences & Surveillance System
Volume 1, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
1
Summer 2013
Pages 33-40

Article View 10,261
PDF Download 5,221

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Guide for Reviewers

Contact Us

Forms