METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted with convenience sampling employed across five different departments. The departments were a department of medical, surgical, orthopedics, emergency and rehabilitation. The samples were selected according to a minimum of two years of clinical experience without any history of low back surgery. An instrument consists of socio-demographic background, knowledge on body mechanics and Owestry Low Back Pain Disability Index Questionnaire was used in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 139 HCPs were recruited including medical officers, staff nurses, community health nurses, assistant medical officers, physiotherapists, and assistant nurses. A self-administered questionnaire pertaining to knowledge revealed that 73.4% of HCPs had inadequate knowledge of musculoskeletal body mechanics. Among all, 90.6% (minimal: 9.4%, moderate: 43.2%, severe: 42.4%, crippled: 5.0%) of HCPs showed moderate to crippled disability using Oswestry Disability Index classifications indicating the poor practice of body mechanics while working.
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that a lack of knowledge among healthcare professionals lead to the inadequate practice of preserving musculoskeletal health while carrying out duty in caring patients. It is suggested that enforcing and emphasizing health education for healthcare professionals is urgently needed towards reducing the risk of the musculoskeletal problem among healthcare professionals.
Aim: The present research was conducted to identify site-specific pain resulting from musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among practicing dentists and determine its impact on their quality of life.
Setting and Design: A cross-sectional questionnaire study conducted among practicing dentists of Puducherry Taluk, Puducherry, India.
Method and Materials: A closed-ended, self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 95 practicing dentists to identify site-specific MSP from the study subjects. Data on pain due to MSDs, frequency of pain, its impact on quality of life, relieving factors, patients attended per day, working hours per day, and awareness on ergonomics were also recorded.
Statistical Analyses: The data were analyzed for descriptive statistics, and Chi-square tests was used for proportions.
Results: Almost all respondents experienced pain due to MSDs. Approximately, 11.1% "always" experienced elbow pain; 5.6% "always" experienced pain in neck and back. Approximately, 83% "sometimes" experienced pain in the back. Pain in elbow was significantly associated with gender (P = 0.036), qualification (P = 0.029), and years of practice (P = 0.032). Approximately, 36% reported having an impact on their life.
Conclusion: The magnitude of the problem is slowly shifting from "sometimes" to "always." Although small in proportion, pain due to MSDs has an impact on dental practitioners' quality of life, and elbow pain was reportedly higher in the study setting. Measures need to be implemented before MSD becomes a career limiting occupational hazard.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the relationship between specific physical and psychosocial factors and/or ergonomic conditions on MSD symptoms among dentists in Malaysia.
METHODS: A group of 85 dentists was asked to complete a questionnaire to determine whether their complaints were related to physical and psychosocial factors and/or ergonomic conditions in their practices.
RESULTS: Among the nine reviewed body areas, the shoulders were most often affected by symptoms of MSDs (92.7%). Moreover, MSDs of the neck and upper back were most likely to prevent these practitioners from engaging in normal activities (32.9%). In general, no significant differences were found in the prevalence of MSD symptoms in relation to gender, age, body mass index, years in practice, number of patients, and frequency of breaks.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results were consistent with those reported in other studies that focused on MSD problems among dentists in other countries. To reduce the prevalence of MSDs, more attention should be paid to instituting ergonomically sensible approaches in the dental practice setting.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of physical, cognitive and organisational ergonomic interventions, or combinations of those interventions for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs among office workers.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Embase, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to 10 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic interventions for preventing work-related upper limb or neck MSDs (or both) among office workers. We only included studies where the baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, was less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the interventions and outcomes in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs (2165 workers). We judged one study to have a low risk of bias and the remaining 14 studies to have a high risk of bias due to small numbers of participants and the potential for selection bias.Physical ergonomic interventionsThere is inconsistent evidence for arm supports and alternative computer mouse designs. There is moderate-quality evidence that an arm support with an alternative computer mouse (two studies) reduced the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99), but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck or shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There is moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck or shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not considerably reduced when comparing an alternative computer mouse and a conventional mouse (two studies; neck or shoulder: RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), and also when comparing an arm support with a conventional mouse and a conventional mouse alone (two studies) (neck or shoulder: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 6.98; right upper limb: RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.96).Workstation adjustment (one study) and sit-stand desks (one study) did not have an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort, compared to no intervention.Organisational ergonomic interventionsThere is very low-quality evidence that supplementary breaks (two studies) reduce discomfort of the neck (MD -0.25; 95% CI -0.40 to -0.11), right shoulder or upper arm (MD -0.33; 95% CI -0.46 to -0.19), and right forearm or wrist or hand (MD -0.18; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.08) among data entry workers.Training in ergonomic interventionsThere is low to very low-quality evidence in five studies that participatory and active training interventions may or may not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb or neck or both.Multifaceted ergonomic interventionsFor multifaceted interventions there is one study (very low-quality evidence) that showed no effect on any of the six upper limb pain outcomes measured in that study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found inconsistent evidence that the use of an arm support or an alternative mouse may or may not reduce the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs. For other physical ergonomic interventions there is no evidence of an effect. For organisational interventions, in the form of supplementary breaks, there is very low-quality evidence of an effect on upper limb discomfort. For training and multifaceted interventions there is no evidence of an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions among office workers.
OBJECTIVE: To review the prevalence of illness, stress, and corresponding risk factors among educators in Malaysia.
METHOD: Scopus, ProQuest, PubMed, ScienceDirect, CAB, and other computerized databases were searched according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies published between January 2013 and April 2019 on the prevalence and associated risk factors of illness and stress among educators (S1 Checklist). The keywords used included educator, teacher, lecturer, academic staff, teaching profession, university staff, academician, faculty, illness, injury, disease, pain, WMSD, dysphonia, hoarseness, stress, mental health, strain, health problem, disorder, and/or Malaysia. Selected studies were evaluated by quality assessment.
RESULTS: Twenty-two articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The prevalence of illness and stress was determined for low back pain (33.3-72.9%); upper back pain (33.33-56.4%); neck/shoulder pain (40.4-80.1%); upper arm discomfort (91.3%); forearm pain (89.6%); wrist pain (16.7-93.2%); hip pain (13.2-40.9%); thigh discomfort (91.8%); lower leg discomfort (90.5%); knee pain (23.7-88.0%); ankle/feet pain (19.3-87.7%); elbow pain (3.5-13.0%); voice disorder (10.4-13.0%) and stress (5.5-25.9%). Sex, education level, teaching experience, quality of life, anxiety, depression, coping styles, and others were reported as associated risk factors across the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a cause for concern regarding musculoskeletal disorders, voice disorder, and stress reported among educators in Malaysia. While most risk factors matched those reported in studies elsewhere, others such as school characteristics (school level, government or private school, and location [rural/urban]) have not been investigated.
METHODS: A cohort of 611 male Malaysian Army recruits were recruited and followed up at 3 and 6 months. Pain catastrophising, MSD, sociodemographic and work factors were measured using a self-administered questionnaire, and MSI incidence was retrieved from the medical records. Multivariable fixed effects regression was used to model the cumulative incidence of MSD and MSI.
RESULTS: Approximately 12% of the recruits were diagnosed with incident MSI and 80% reported incident MSD. Higher pain catastrophising at baseline was associated with higher 6 month MSD risk (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.6 per 1 SD increase of Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS) scores; 95% CI 1.2 to 2.0), and longitudinally associated with MSD incidence (aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.4). Pain catastrophising was not associated with MSI incidence (aOR 1.0, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.3). The association between pain catastrophising and self-reported MSD was stronger among recruits with self-reported past injury (p for interaction <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Pain catastrophising was able to predict symptomatic MSD, and not physician-diagnosed MSI, and these findings are directly related to individual health beliefs. Pain catastrophising has a greater influence on how military recruits perceived their musculoskeletal conditions during training, and efforts to reduce pain catastrophising may be beneficial.